Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

If we only needed one proof for old Stanley's unique talent : this thread is the first one I've seen gathering so many posts in such a little time since I've been wandering on these (jarred) lands.

Yes he was a genius, even though I don't like half of his films.

My favourites :
The Shining
2001
Clockwork Orange
Lolita
The Paths Of Glory
Dr Strangelove
The Killer's Kiss

And although I think the script of "Eyes Wide Shut" gets stuck in the swamp of indecision on its second part, it contains at least two unbelievable scenes : the revelation scene (Nicole telling Tom Cruise her fancying the sailor) and the orgy scene (with the mystical music by Jocelyn Pook).

Kubrick can't be overrated : he's unratable.
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

Sigh......

I think he's more legend than legit. Like the Wolfman said; he is accomplished and a few (IMHO) are good films (Full Metal being my favorite) but It's just not my bag.

I think people get caught up in the Man more than Movies.
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=movies;num=1081463847;start=0#21 date=04/08/04 at 22:05:57]I think people get caught up in the Man more than Movies. [/quote]


I agree with you, John.

Kubrick was a skilled director, but I see no reason to deify him.

To each his own, I guess.
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=movies;num=1081463847;start=0#1 date=04/08/04 at 16:04:32]Kubrick is a *****.[/quote]

John, come on...

Be careful : you're not a God anymore (The Lord Jarred inexplicably decided to make this site an atheist one a few days ago). Your back-to-human status forbids you to blaspheme. ;-)

Being up there, Uncle Stanley is one of them Gods now, and he sure is a frowny one.

Kneel down, and humbly ask for mercy or as your punishment, you'll have to be the main character of a Z snuff movie shot on VHS called : "0.2001, a Cheap Odyssey, or How I Became the Sexual Toy And Then Got Eaten By a Nasty Tribe Of Hairy Republican Pre-Humans".  :-/
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

LOL

Sounds like a familar story "A god being reduced to immortality!"; but, alas, I am a DVX FILMMAKER now! Bwhahahah!
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

I think this little argument can be settled with a brief paragraph from the voice of reason (uhhh... me?) ;D

I credit/blame MTV quick cutting videos and TV shows, for making a slow paced film unacceptable to the average viewer these days. Hence the reason why your average viewer wouldn't have the patience to watch 2001 today.

But one must remember that it's very easy to look back on someone's body of work today and say "eh, what's so special about it?" if you don't put it into the context of the time it was created. One must remember that when Kubrick was in his hayday, he was considered a visionary. He was doing things that hadn't been done at the time, thus making them unique. Now, years later, after many a film maker has learned from and expanded upon Kubrick's innovations, it can come across blase. Thus giving rise to such comments as "kubrick sucks". And why is that you ask? Because your average viewer has seen it done and redone again a billion times in other films since. So if you look at Kubrick's work now, it's not so special anymore, right?

Typically, it is rare for the average viewer to see the subtle emotional undertones of what a gifted film maker is going for. Usually, they just pay attention to the surface techniques and are easily wowed by eye candy. But remember, eye candy is easy. Connecting on an emotional level is hard. This requires participation from both the film maker and the viewer though. If the viewer has no depth to him, then odds are he's going to be one of those "DUDE, YOU ROCK MAN. THAT WAS TOTALLY AWESOME" kind of guys. Rarely does someone with this kind of thinking "get it" and there's only so far a film maker can take someone like this.

On a closing note: In my view, Rodriguez is an eye candy guy and not even a really great one at that. Only really good eye candy I've seen from him was Desperado. The rest were just average looking to me. And he's a horrible storyteller. Can you say "once upon a time in mexico"? There's a reason they held that movie in the can until Johnny dep hit it big in Pirates. Only really great thing about Rodriguez is he knows how to make a film under budget which is a great talent in itself.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

Thats a nice try. I, unfortunate for the Kubrick fans, can see beyond the times. I can objectively watch something and say "That sucked.".

We can use your example for every generation of any artistic genre. We could discuss Cubism in the Art Movement and the importance of the influence but it will still suck in my opinion.

My like or dislike for a film (or any art for that matter) is objective and if it doesn't do it for me; it doesn't do it for me. I have not seen all of Kubricks films but the ones I have seen have not done it. A skilled Director? Of course. A deity among filmmakers? Not for me.

For me it has nothing to do with the MTV generation and being awed by eye candy. It either moves me or it does not.

Doing something that no one else is doing is nice but that doesn't mean it's good. Look at Pollock's work (as portrayed by Ed Harris); the art still sucked "But oooooh.... Ahhhhhhhhh.... what vision!"

People like art (and film is an art form with many types of work) for different reasons and Kubrick's films I find usually (not always) a waste of my time.

The take that "...considered a visionary. He was doing things that hadn't been done at the time..." completely validates my take earlier of people being caught up in the "Man more than the Movies."

Terms like "He was a visionary" and "He shunned the system and did things his own way" is great for the book but it doesn't speak anything about the actual work.
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

I second Storyteller's view...almost totally.

The "almost" part is that I don't think Kubrick's been much copied. Or so badly that I can't consider that a valuable argument for viewers of today to get bored in front of 2001. The only aspect I could think of would be the extensive use of steadycam like he did in "The Shining", but even there, I never found this shortissimo-focal-length-with-subject-centered-in-the-frame style anywhere else.
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=movies;num=1081463847;start=25#28 date=04/09/04 at 10:13:22]My like or dislike for a film (or any art for that matter) is objective and if it doesn't do it for me; it doesn't do it for me. [/quote]

You mean "subjective", John ? Still the ex-God syndrom.

You're a lucky bastard I like you very much — at least your DVXuser avatar. For anyone else, I would already be on my way to you with my axe, my cane and my bowler hat whistling a Beethoven tune.

I kind of remember we already had a disagreement on which Alien was the greatest. You chose Jim "caterpillar" Cameron and I chose Ridley "hawk eye" Scott.

You're a great challenge for my sense of tolerance, John. But I like you though because you're a passionate guy :)
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

No, no. I meant Objective

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic or
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.


I concur my Parisan friend. But if I see you coming with the ax I'll have to conquer.
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

I'm in a hurry so I'll try to make this short (for once).

I don't think there's such thing as "objective", especially when talking about art. The best we can do is to temper our subjectivity with the others' subjectivity, and that's already quite a challenge.

I'll quote you again, John : "My like or dislike for a film (or any art for that matter) is objective and if it doesn't do it for me; it doesn't do it for me."

In a single phrase, you just say that your vision being objective, when it's not working for you, then it's not working in the absolute.

Wahoo… I hope this is not the bottom of your thought (I know it isn't, is it ?) This is the kind of philosophy that lead some rascals to burn thousands of book 70 years ago in the streets of Berlin. And this was just a few years before they burnt the authors of the books. :-X

I don't want to take that chatting too seriously — we're all kind persons here. But I'm appalled by your view. Am I the only one ?
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

[quote author=Anartiste link=board=movies;num=1081463847;start=25#30 date=04/09/04 at 10:29:59]
For anyone else, I would already be on my way to you with my axe, my cane and my bowler hat whistling a Beethoven tune.[/quote]

Anartiste, you are one funny guy. I gotta say it's usually between you and IAL as for who's funniest on this board. The fact that you're pulling it off and it's a foreign language to you is just amazing!
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

[quote author=STORYTELLER32 link=board=movies;num=1081463847;start=25#27 date=04/09/04 at 09:00:10]I think this little argument can be settled with a brief paragraph from the voice of reason (uhhh... me?) ;D

I credit/blame MTV quick cutting videos and TV shows, for making a slow paced film unacceptable to the average viewer these days. Hence the reason why your average viewer wouldn't have the patience to watch 2001 today.
[/quote]

For the average viewer maybe so. But I am not an average viewer and I still didn't like it, though I had the patience to watch the whole thing. I'm not saying it sucked, it just didn't do it for me.

I haven't watched MTV since Headbangers Ball ended around 1990. Can't stand it. I am very much drawn to slow paced movies. I just watched Koyaanisqatsi for the first time and sat mesmerized for an hour and a half. And even though it had some visually fast sequences with time-lapse, it was still a slow-paced film. It was also made 20 years ago and I still got it.
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

[quote author=Brad_Thames link=board=movies;num=1081463847;start=25#34 date=04/09/04 at 11:30:44]
I just watched  Koyaanisqatsi [/quote]

Did you type that from memory? Tell the truth!
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

weeelllllll....no. OK, so I had 2 "n's" instead of 2 "a's". But I was dang close. Thank God for high-speed internet ;)
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

I think I would have put in the K and the I and then just inserted random As, Ns, Ts, and Ys.
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

[quote author=Anartiste link=board=movies;num=1081463847;start=25#32 date=04/09/04 at 10:56:57]I'm in a hurry so I'll try to make this short (for once).

I don't think there's such thing as "objective", especially when talking about art. The best we can do is to temper our subjectivity with the others' subjectivity, and that's already quite a challenge.

I'll quote you again, John : "My like or dislike for a film (or any art for that matter) is objective and if it doesn't do it for me; it doesn't do it for me."

In a single phrase, you just say that your vision being objective, when it's not working for you, then it's not working in the absolute.

Wahoo… I hope this is not the bottom of your thought (I know it isn't, is it ?) This is the kind of philosophy that lead some rascals to burn thousands of book 70 years ago in the streets of Berlin. And this was just a few years before they burnt the authors of the books.  :-X

I don't want to take that chatting too seriously — we're all kind persons here. But I'm appalled by your view. Am I the only one ?[/quote]

I have thought about my like or dislike for Kubrick.  I have thought 'Objectively' (You know,  "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic or  
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.)

If it satisifies you, we can say that my 'Objective Opinion' or simply say my "like or dislike" of ANYTHING stems from a 'Subjective' decision.

To compare this 'thought process' to a "philosophy" is what's really at the "bottom" and to liken it "that lead some rascals to burn thousands of book 70 years ago in the streets of Berlin. And this was just a few years before they burnt the authors of the books" is what is really appalling.

You can be shocked/dismayed and on the verge of tears.  The opinion still stands and to disagree or attempt to discredit this opinion is really the kind of thought process that leads down the road you are trying to navigate.

And in asking the predictable question of "Am I the only one?" is really just an attempt to rally support, isn't it?
 
Re: Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

I would like to adress the gentlemen, Check Yourself.

I agree, Kubrick is all up on every single one of us. It is inevitable that those without an argument will, indeed, stoop so low, to go so far as to claim that the films he makes are too long to watch. Only the week minded are able to use this  excuse. Kubrick utilizes pure cinema, images without words, to convey to us the audience his genius.

2001 Changed my life. It gave me a purpose to go on living.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top