What are your thoughts on Stanley Kubrick?

I call him overrated in the way I call Lynch overrated- I don't think he was as deep and amazing as people made him out to be, but I don't think he was a bad filmmaker or anything. I'm sure people could argue for him and I think a "my dad is better than your dad" discussion has hopefully been avoided.

Mostly, I have problems with the teenagers who just LOVE ClockWork Orange for the rape and violence- and they miss the whole point of it. Same with teenagers who obsess over Taxi Driver because of the violence (this was, in fact, me when I was 17).
 
On the subject of Stanley K, I think most objections to his work ultimately come down to taste. You can't really fault him much on technical or aesthetic grounds. Some people like austere and cerebral. Some don't. I love it. The only film of his that disappointed me was Eyes Wide Shut. Full Metal Jacket is structurally flawed, but that first half is so good it almost doesn't matter.
 
I used to really love Kubrick. Yet, rewatching many of his films, I realize there's really something missing: Humanity. He seems to be so focused on the technical aspects, that none of the movies really have any form of human emotions in them. I still really enjoy the movies, but I just can't get as in to them as I used to.
 
I'm still amazed that he have top film in almost all genres.
Sci-Fi (2001) , Horror ( Shinning) , Period (Barry Lydon
) , Comedy (Dr.Strangelove), War (Full Metal Jacket), Cult (Clockwork).

He made very few movies but did each one quite well.
 
RallyMonkey said:
I used to really love Kubrick. Yet, rewatching many of his films, I realize there's really something missing: Humanity. He seems to be so focused on the technical aspects, that none of the movies really have any form of human emotions in them. I still really enjoy the movies, but I just can't get as in to them as I used to.
Click to expand...

Well, I love just about all of Kubrick's films, even the ones that aren't considered great like Eyes Wide Shut. I have the opposite position lately with film. I am starting to really appreciate and become more fascinated by films with extreme technical prowess, more so than before at least.

Don't get me wrong, I think that story is very much an integral part of a good film. a great film needs an amazing script though. And when I say technical prowess, I don't simply mean something like Transformers 2 which has amazing effects but not much else to offer. A good example of a recent film that is technically and narratively powerful would be The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I actually think that would be a film Kubrick would have been interested in making. Not saying that Fincher was cribbing from Kubrick, but Benjamin Button was Kubrickian in certain ways.

I think that lately, a lot of modern films are a bit sloppy technically. From the hand held shaky cam craze to blown out highlights and epileptic camera work, the cinema of today can be kind of tiring to watch physically. A lot of people are very prone to getting motion sickness during films with frantic hand held cinematography. Even a film like the Bourne series, which I thought used hand held very well, can overdo it at times. I wonder what percentage of the audience is turned away from all these big studio films due to their wanting to avoid motion sickness.

The thing with Kubrick that I love is that he wasn't afraid to show you what was in the frame in each shot. Probably because he didn't need to be afraid to. He wasn't worried about covering up any short cuts that the production designer might have taken with the set or a prop or something that was missing because he obviously made sure everything was in order and where it was supposed to be before rolling the camera. Maybe he was too obsessive and can be called a 'clockwork' filmmaker, but the results are stunning and fantastic. I also look up to his perfectionist methods because I like to think that if you're going to do something like making a feature length film, you might as well attempt to do it right or not do it at all. There's nothing wrong with taking time to make something grand. Something I think bottom line and $$$ obsessed Hollywood forgets too many times to count.
 
Last edited:
I have nothing against technical prowess. I think it's one of the main differences between good films and great films. But Kubrick never had a good balance between focusing on story and technical innovations. My favorite films of the last two years were Revolutionary Road and There Will Be Blood. Both movies aesthetically amazing, but there's also a great story, and extremely strong emotions. Something that I think Kubrick films are really missing.
 
Nektonic said:
Well, I love just about all of Kubrick's films, even the ones that aren't considered great like Eyes Wide Shut. I have the opposite position lately with film. I am starting to really appreciate and become more fascinated by films with extreme technical prowess, more so than before at least.

Don't get me wrong, I think that story is very much an integral part of a good film. a great film needs an amazing script though. And when I say technical prowess, I don't simply mean something like Transformers 2 which has amazing effects but not much else to offer. A good example of a recent film that is technically and narratively powerful would be The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I actually think that would be a film Kubrick would have been interested in making. Not saying that Fincher was cribbing from Kubrick, but Benjamin Button was Kubrickian in certain ways.

I think that lately, a lot of modern films are a bit sloppy technically. From the hand held shaky cam craze to blown out highlights and epileptic camera work, the cinema of today can be kind of tiring to watch physically. A lot of people are very prone to getting motion sickness during films with frantic hand held cinematography. Even a film like the Bourne series, which I thought used hand held very well, can overdo it at times. I wonder what percentage of the audience is turned away from all these big studio films due to their wanting to avoid motion sickness.

The thing with Kubrick that I love is that he wasn't afraid to show you what was in the frame in each shot. Probably because he didn't need to be afraid to. He wasn't worried about covering up any short cuts that the production designer might have taken with the set or a prop or something that was missing because he obviously made sure everything was in order and where it was supposed to be before rolling the camera. Maybe he was too obsessive and can be called a 'clockwork' filmmaker, but the results are stunning and fantastic. I also look up to his perfectionist methods because I like to think that if you're going to do something like making a feature length film, you might as well attempt to do it right or not do it at all. There's nothing wrong with taking time to make something grand. Something I think bottom line and $$$ obsessed Hollywood forgets too many times to count.
Click to expand...


I think the other poster meant what I meant- I had no problem with his technical style other than he became so obsessed with the setting and special FX in films like 2001 that he forgot to really say something deep and probe inside himself. It's like that Chris Doyle quote you have in your sig. I just think he took too much of a cynical, tongue in cheek look at humanity's problems in his films, notably Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket that only skimmed the surface of our complexities, barring of course Paths of Glory which I think had a tremendous amount of humanity (while still keep a terrible sense of horror and dread).

From what I remember from Eyes Wide Shut, he was moving back into that complexity somewhat, really looking at humans in a deeper, open light, unafraid of showing emotional vulnerability. But unfortunately he died pretty young. So who knows? Look at Coppolla- he's coming back with supposedly, smaller, more inward looking films like Tetro. Kubrick might have made some of his best films in the 21st century, but we'll unfortunately never know.
 
It was my interest in Kubrick that made me take filmmaking seriously, so I have been a fan since I saw The Shining when I was 14 years old.

My personal favourites are Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut. And I don't believe that Kubrick lacked any capabilities at portraying humanity, his films are all about people who has lost their humanity.
 
Nektonic said:
I think that lately, a lot of modern films are a bit sloppy technically. From the hand held shaky cam craze to blown out highlights and epileptic camera work, the cinema of today can be kind of tiring to watch physically. A lot of people are very prone to getting motion sickness during films with frantic hand held cinematography. Even a film like the Bourne series, which I thought used hand held very well, can overdo it at times. I wonder what percentage of the audience is turned away from all these big studio films due to their wanting to avoid motion sickness.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. I think it's a generational thing. Handheld/shaky cam is a very visceral technique that the video game generation likes and actually gravitates to. I find that handheld and fast cutting are extremely important for certain audiences. Not to say that's the only thing that makes them like something but it certainly appeals to them more I think. It's a very immersive style and takes talent to do well.
 
I would say what it really comes down to is taste, and unfortunately for Stanley Kubrick he had very unique taste. The kinds of stories he wanted to tell were not that the masses wanted to see.

I think he and Spielberg are in a way matching counterpoints and very comparable. The difference is taste. They are both complete technical masters of the craft. They know HOW to make a movie, and make it DAMN well. Luckily for Steven Spielberg the ideas that pop into his head and the things that really turn him on every couple of years are things like dinosaurs, alien encounters, futuristic worlds, etc, and it's fantastic. And it's very lucky for him to have that taste, because he's not faking it. It's genuine, he LOVES those stories and tells them passionately, and the public loves them too. Unfortunately for Stanley the kind of stories he was passionate about telling did not usually end up being what the public would have wanted.
 
Why is that "unfortunate?" If it's because acceptance by the masses equals personal and professional satisfaction, then Kubrick wasn't after satisfaction. From start to finish, Kubrick held up a mirror for all of us to see the things that humanity is capable of, which isn't what many movie-goers like. They like spectacle and bombast, embracing movies that let them detach from reality for two hours (or more, if you're Michael Bay). There's nothing wrong with this, but people make movies for very different reasons, and for very different audiences.

And remember, N'Sync may have sold millions of records, but that doesn't mean they don't suck.

--SM
 
armisiano said:
...Unfortunately for Stanley the kind of stories he was passionate about telling did not usually end up being what the public would have wanted.
Click to expand...


Kubrick's movies were not, on the whole, unpopular, with maybe the exception of Eyes Wide Shut...They almost always were made with huge stars of the time.

And he was an extremely shrewd businessman and always looked toward his films making money.
 
Richard J. Johnson said:
...and the parts he directed on A.I. were very creepy. Then Steven came in and speilberged it Which is not really a bad thing. (maybe)
Click to expand...

Wait, which "parts" did Kubrick direct? I thought AI was handed off to Speilberg before filming began.

A great film, glad to have seen it again recently.
 
armisiano said:
I would say what it really comes down to is taste, and unfortunately for Stanley Kubrick he had very unique taste. The kinds of stories he wanted to tell were not that the masses wanted to see.

I think he and Spielberg are in a way matching counterpoints and very comparable. The difference is taste. They are both complete technical masters of the craft. They know HOW to make a movie, and make it DAMN well. Luckily for Steven Spielberg the ideas that pop into his head and the things that really turn him on every couple of years are things like dinosaurs, alien encounters, futuristic worlds, etc, and it's fantastic. And it's very lucky for him to have that taste, because he's not faking it. It's genuine, he LOVES those stories and tells them passionately, and the public loves them too. Unfortunately for Stanley the kind of stories he was passionate about telling did not usually end up being what the public would have wanted.
Click to expand...

There are so many things wrong with this post that my mind started melting.
 
Sadly, I think Kubrick had passed away before filming began. I wonder how different AI would have been with him at the helm. A bit darker, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top