my theory about Kubrick films

HerzogisGod

HerzogisGod

Well-known member
it occurred to me that Kubrick films are like cartoons. The writing, the style, the characters he creates. Cartoons are over the top. A great cartoon character is iconic

All of Kubrick's characters are iconic in the same way great cartoon characters are iconic. They are bigger than life, they are symbolic of something deeper, they are archetypes.

Archetypal. That's the link between Kubrick's characters, his writing, and cartoons
 
I don't know, I never thought of the characters as cartoonish or iconic. Archetypes maybe, not sure about that either.
 
I don't know whether I would relate his characters to cartoon characters, but what I do know is that Kubrick was god, or Jesus at least!
 
I know it's a strange analogy, but it occurred to me the other day. And it makes me wonder if this might be true of ALL great characters in film. And perhaps this is what we should strive for when Creating characters for our own stories. Big, Over the top, Archetypal, memorable because they can be clearly defined, Like Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck. Yet dig a little deeper and you find a storm of complexity
 
I don't know if I would use the word cartoon, though.

This reminds me of an essay I just read on Kubrick the other day. Here is an excerpt:

1. As his films became more abstract, Kubrick’s use of dialogue likewise evolved. Often, his acting style approaches a kind of 'Mannerism' that can be unsettling. This has a kind of two-dimensional quality, not merely puppet-like, but rather more Shadow Puppet-like. David Mamet does this as well, to great effect.

2. The "Kubrick acting style" seems to portray his characters as pawns governed by forces much greater than their own conscious decisions. Kubrick's world cuts beneath the surface to the underlying forces. The characters' inner workings are laid as bare as their explicit actions. We're not to be distracted by what the characters think they're doing, but what they do in spite of thinking. Their consciousness is stripped away to the point where they appear to be strange exaggerations of human behaviour.

3. Kubrick's dialogue often has a strong sense of irony. He masks horror behind a facade of civility. In "2001", Floyd politely lies to the Russians, who, though they don't believe him, politely accept his explanation. In "The Shining", murder and genocide becomes "correction" and "duty". In "Barry Lyndon", duels are conducted with civility and highway robberies are conducted in a gentlemanly fashion. Similarly, in "A Clockwork Orange", rape and violence becomes a playful song and dance routine and in "Eyes Wide Shut", virtually every dialogue scene with Ziegler contains subtly veiled threats.

4. The dialogue and acting style is an attempt to abstract larger ideas. Many of Kubrick's characters are extreme representations of a philosophical stance.

5. Kubrick dealt in archetypes. It's not surprising that Jung interested him so much. Character was secondary in Kubrick's universe. Cutting to the meat of the philosophical issue was key. Actors were specific vessels for his broad and abstract mind games.

Here is a link to the whole article:http://kubrickfilms.tripod.com/id82.html
 
Ah....very good essay and i completely agree. this explains what Im trying to get at, but much more eloquently. Yes, it's Kubricks dialog that is so unnerving. Just the barest of Bare essentials. Not one extra word in either direction.

I used to think his dialog was overly simplistic and blamed it on Kubrick's obsession with "image" and "photography"above all else. But his dialog, as i stated above, is "deceptively" simple. so stripped down that every syllable is crucial.

i read somewhere that he would re-write constantly, even seconds before shooting a scene there would be a re-write.

There are Zero distractions in his dialog, very very true. And very difficult to achieve. He is the master
 
I think that Kubrick's distinctiveness goes beyond characters and acting style, and while I agree with what you are trying to say with the cartoon analogy, I think that the simple fact is that Kubrick maybe made extremely personal films that just happened to have universal themes and were funded by Hollywood money. Everything, from the actors, set design, music, cinematography, visual effects, pacing, script, etc. have an unmistakable Kubrick touch. Another thing with some of his films is that he would take a long time creating the film. He would shoot take after take to make sure he got one or more that worked.

I sometimes wonder that if movies weren't so rushed these days and thought of merely as a product, that another director like Kubrick might crop up. What I mean by this is not the same style as Kubrick, but someone who creates extremely detailed and original cinematic visions that couldn't be much better or more thoroughly complete once they hit the screen.

Another thing that I've always thought about his characters is that they appear simple at first, but on repeated viewings, they are revealed to be more complex. I've sometimes thought that about his films as well. There is more below the surface than you might see. Plus, his movies were actually about something, even if in an abstract sense.
 
Last edited:
Nektonic said:
I think that the simple fact is that Kubrick maybe made extremely personal films that just happened to have universal themes and were funded by Hollywood money. Everything, from the actors, set design, music, cinematography, visual effects, pacing, script, etc. have an unmistakable Kubrick touch. Another thing with some of his films is that he would take a long time creating the film. He would shoot take after take to make sure he got one or more that worked.

I sometimes wonder that if movies weren't so rushed these days and thought of merely as a product, that another director like Kubrick might crop up. ... someone who creates extremely detailed and original cinematic visions that couldn't be much better or more thoroughly complete once they hit the screen.

Another thing that I've always thought about his characters is that they appear simple at first, but on repeated viewings, they are revealed to be more complex.
Click to expand...

While I'm the first to note that Kubrick was in his own right an artist. I've never been a fan of really any of his work. I recently went to a premiere and they were playing "2001" while the patrons mingled. I thought I would die. I remember watching the movie at 14 hating it and I'd seen it many times since and everytime, I didn't find the "joy".

I applaud him for standing out, creating his style, but it's interesting to see true fans of him - since I rarely find one outside the acedemic world.

I do think new "Kubriks" are among us, some of them are Baz Lurman, The Coen Bros and Michael Mann. Each with a very distinct style and layers of complex characters. It wasn't until I saw "Miami Vice" for the second time that I really understood it's brilliance.

I do believe we as people have a facination with the deceased. Once a person is gone, we no longer have the ability to ask questions. So instead we must study their body of work, and by doing so we make them into idols for us to worship.

In today's society I doubt "Kubrick" would have survived. He was best for his own time, where people even now revere him. Had he been born 10 years later OR 10 years earlier, we wouldn't know his name because of societal pressures and norms.

Just my .02
 
jls4 said:
I do believe we as people have a facination with the deceased. Once a person is gone, we no longer have the ability to ask questions. So instead we must study their body of work, and by doing so we make them into idols for us to worship.

In today's society I doubt "Kubrick" would have survived. He was best for his own time, where people even now revere him. Had he been born 10 years later OR 10 years earlier, we wouldn't know his name because of societal pressures and norms.

Just my .02
Click to expand...

I think that what you say about the fascination with the deceased is a reason, or at least partial reason why many are interested in a person's body of work after their passing. Couple that with Kubrick being very original, whether you like him or not, and I'm not surprised so many still talk about him and his work.

As for you not being into his work, there is nothing wrong with that at all. Everyone has their own tastes and preferences. For example, I just can't get into the series Lost. I can't no matter how many times I've tried. I do however, understand and appreciate its significance in helping bring more diverse types of shows to television. I'm sure just about everyone on this forum could find some important piece of cinema or literature that they hate or dislike, but can still admit or respect the work and its creator for what it did to the art and craft of its medium.
 
i'd have to go with instead of "cartoon" per say, i'd go with simply more fantasy if anything. his characters delve deeper into the imagination and are so incredibly unique, i don't think there is any true adequate comparison. they have the over the top unbelievableness of a cartoon, yet they are strong and powerful that ur willing to let that go and actually believe the character is who he or she is.
 
jls4 said:
In today's society I doubt "Kubrick" would have survived. He was best for his own time, where people even now revere him. Had he been born 10 years later OR 10 years earlier, we wouldn't know his name because of societal pressures and norms.

Just my .02
Click to expand...

er...what? He made movies for close to half the amount of time movies even existed. What exactly is his own time? And what are you talking about with "societal pressures and norms?"
 
jls4 said:
In today's society I doubt "Kubrick" would have survived. He was best for his own time, where people even now revere him. Had he been born 10 years later OR 10 years earlier, we wouldn't know his name because of societal pressures and norms.
Click to expand...

huh? Kubrick's films have timeless themes. His films will always be relevant. They are not victim to the filmmaking fads or styles of the time they were made.

If anything, he was ahead of his time.

Look at Dr. Strangelove or Full Metal Jacket or Clockwork Orange...

You can apply alot of his opinions, ideas, and satire that were suggested in his films to today and it completely resonates, which makes it even more powerful.
 
jls4 said:
I do think new "Kubriks" are among us, some of them are Baz Lurman, The Coen Bros and Michael Mann. Each with a very distinct style and layers of complex characters. It wasn't until I saw "Miami Vice" for the second time that I really understood it's brilliance.
Click to expand...

I don't see any connection between Kubrick, even in spirit, to any of those directors.

In spirit, I would say that maybe Terrance Malick reminds me a little bit of Kubrick in certain regards.
 
jls4 said:
While I'm the first to note that Kubrick was in his own right an artist. I've never been a fan of really any of his work. I recently went to a premiere and they were playing "2001" while the patrons mingled. I thought I would die. I remember watching the movie at 14 hating it and I'd seen it many times since and everytime, I didn't find the "joy".

I applaud him for standing out, creating his style, but it's interesting to see true fans of him - since I rarely find one outside the acedemic world.

I do think new "Kubriks" are among us, some of them are Baz Lurman, The Coen Bros and Michael Mann. Each with a very distinct style and layers of complex characters. It wasn't until I saw "Miami Vice" for the second time that I really understood it's brilliance.

I do believe we as people have a facination with the deceased. Once a person is gone, we no longer have the ability to ask questions. So instead we must study their body of work, and by doing so we make them into idols for us to worship.

In today's society I doubt "Kubrick" would have survived. He was best for his own time, where people even now revere him. Had he been born 10 years later OR 10 years earlier, we wouldn't know his name because of societal pressures and norms.

Just my .02
Click to expand...

Here's some interesting discourse about 2001 and perhaps it might help you to see the film in a different light. I'm not sure you will find the "joy" you are looking for, unless it is the joy of fascinating images and incredibly deep ideas.

HM: Perhaps, Barry, you can confirm/clarify a striking impression I had. . . . From memory, I think it is in the scene in 2001 where Frank is being killed that the following occurs. When we see the astronaut's helmet from above, its shape and markings make it look just like the head of an insect. I don't know whether this relates to the above comment about Dave's helmet, or whether the impression intended is simply to make Frank look helpless and insignificant. I think the key scene in which this occurs is when Frank is desperately trying to reconnect his severed air hose (I could be wrong, but it would be easy to check). Following from the above comment about Dave's helmet, it could be that the insect-head helmets represent what is unfeeling and automatic about the people in the film. While performing the first truly human (humane) act in the whole film, Dave forgets his helmet, that is, he leaves behind the "insect" part of him, and as the above comment says, this entitles him to be elevated.

BK: Well, that's a fascinating viewpoint. . . . It seems to me that Kubrick is telling us to chuck all this artificial crap, and start living regular lives, without all the human-made complications which make it such an ordeal. But to get back, we're going to have to take some risks, maybe help a few others at risk to ourselves.

HM: Yes. In the insect world the individual means nothing. The social insects help each other, but it's purely for the sake of the nest, or the species. The people in 2001 have no personality to speak of. They are insects in that sense, until Dave's impulsive act of unselfishness, which is immediately followed by the events leading to the finale.

BK: This supposedly coldest of films is telling us the value of warmth.

HM: Yes again. Kubrick is an artist. By that I mean that he never shoves anything down our throats, but insists that we contribute to the artistic process by bringing part of ourselves into the work, even if it means he has to sacrifice "clarity". That is why:

1) There are so many different interpretations. That's inevitable and desirable, since we're all different. From what I've read of Kubrick's interviews, he would fully approve of that.

2) The film holds so much unquenchable power for those who are willing to put themselves into its hands, so to speak. It's part of ourselves that we are projecting up into those dazzling images on the screen.

But another thought struck me after I read your reply. The impression I always got from the top of the helmet ("seen from above") was that it looked specifically like the face of a locust or grasshopper. I now confirm that impression from stills in a book I have about great films. Now, since you've quoted biblical passages, try this one:

"The land through which we have gone to spy out is a land that eats up its inhabitants, and all the people we saw in it are men of great stature. And there we saw the Nefilim, the sons of Anaq who come of the Nefilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13: 32-33)

The passage concerns the incident of the spies sent by Moses to reconnoitre the promised land before attempting to conquer it. The significance of the "people of great stature" there and how the spies regard themselves in relation to them seems to me quite clear in our context (The Nefilim are usually deemed to be angels who came to earth [Genesis]).

In relation to the above, I would perhaps like to modify the comments you made about warmth. Yes, he is saying we need to be more human and responsive to each other. But to me, Kubrick's attitude to the dehumanising technology seems clearly ambivalent. That is why he revels in it so much, to the point where he is often accused of self- indulgence. He does not seem to be saying that we must reject it, but posing a more realistic dilemma: we love it, we're addicted to it, it's wonderful, but it's leading us down the path of self-destruction. What can we do?

His answer, and this is where I would personally diverge from him, is that we're probably incapable of helping ourselves and need salvation from outside (2001 is the Millenium !!)
Click to expand...

I don't think the interest in Kubrick really has nothing to do with his death, he was as prolific an artist alive as he is dead, but now we have documentaries and such to expand our view of the man.

About him not lasting today because of societal pressures, that just doesn't make sense to me. Kubrick was exactly about straying away from societal pressures and creating his own films.

It's truly incredible how timeless his movies are, they practically do not date. And I'd bank on the fact that if someone were to magically release an unseen Kubrick film, under a different name, or magically create a film that is everything Kubrick, not imitation but actually Kubrick, they would gain immense success.

After seeing Paths of Glory, Orson Welles remarked,"among the younger generation Kubrick strikes me as a giant"
 
You know what. I'm a Kubrick fanatic... And I think you're right. At first I thought it trivialized his work, but it actually does not when you think of it with a respectful mind, knowing his intentions as a filmmaker. When he did the Shining and Steven Crapberg (sp?) said it was too over the top, Kubrick replied with a simple but biting comment: "That's the point."

He also loved drama. He was not really into slice-of-life realism. He wanted things to be believable, but never too close to real life. Also, since most of his work consisted of adaptations of literature, he was accustomed to content that is generally more complex than work written specifically for film. I think that complexity lends itself to that "larger" feeling, rather than a lot of films that try to portray the "everyman." (Of course, Bill Harford is kind of an everyman, but far more developed, and often cited as a cipher rather than a character.)
 
Well Crapberg has always wanted to be Kubrick... and hence why he wrote the foreword to a book on him.. and then he picked up AI to do.


Personally I'd like to have his last film striken from his filmography for every conceivable reason. Eyes Wide shut... made my eyes shut for sure. Such an amazing body of work and that POS as the capstone is just not acceptable. Only thing worse than the film is Tom Cruise's attempt to kiss a woman... you can tell he's gay from that one moment. But I digress....


One of my fondest memories ever in life was when I got to hang out with Lee Ermy. We started to talk about Kubrick and FMJ and it was amazing just to here how he talked about it.. how much he respected kubrick.. but also about the battles that he and Kubrick had over the dialogue and the film in general. Eventually Ermy said that he got Kubrick's trust and he was able to improv and write a lot of the DI dialogue...

My time with Ermy got even better.... or I should say.. kept on going, when we got to talk about him Being in The Frightners. He was surprised that I'd bring that up.. but Jackson has been one of my favs since I saw Brain Dead and such... He said that he was a kook.. a nut.. and helluva good guy.


Now onto this initial topic. I get your point about cartoon, but they are so singularly minded in their motivies. I believe archetype is a better label. In kubrick movies, they aren't just going in one direction.. but several and you can see their struggle to keep it on track. I think that his films are so great because they come off track from time to time. They keep you guessing and it's unnerving and obtuse and crazy... BUT it's linked and given stability by his composition and obsessive attention to every piece of mis-en-scene and to the overal affect of the movie...


Kubrick to so many of us... is what got us started in filmmaking. I saw Clockwork Orange when I was 12 years old and I haven't been the same since.... Now can we please give EWS to another director as that POS haunts me and I didn't even make it.!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top