Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,807 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Stanley Kubrick...

Genius visionary or ripe for the looney bin? Or perhaps a bit of both?

To be honest, my experience with his films is somewhat limited. I've seen 2001: A Spacey Odyssey, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket. Of some of the others, like A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Spartacus, and Eyes Wide Shut, I have only seen a bit.

He was certainly an eccentric persion, which carried over into his work. But I also feel that the insanity in his films was never gratuitous, but it had a purpose and made you think.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
24,908 Posts
u must see all of dr strangelove:D :howler: :howler: :howler:
 

·
1st Tier Poster
Joined
·
48,833 Posts
Kubrick was a perfectionist.His films are visually and technically way ahead of times.And in most of his works he also achieved that unique essence what is characteristic to timeless art.

I've seen most of Kubrick's works.All 6 of his color films are great, especially 2001:Space Odyssey and The Shining, those two belong among my favourite films.
From black&white ones I've seen Paths of Glory and Lolita.These are of course much less enjoyable than his later works, mostly because of the fact that the visual perfection of the scenes is not as strong without colors.
 

·
Fine Gentlemen
Joined
·
15,599 Posts
He's my favourite director. :happy:

Kubrick brilliantly arranges each shot in his film so that the viewer is easily drawn into the story. It's frame by frame work almost that he work too. He is argueably no.1 at taking a novel and making it into a film and making it work too. His films also always have a soundtrack that really is well chosen to go with his work...2001:Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange and Full-Metal Jacket being testaments to what music can do to a film in terms of atmosphere in scenes. I still get goose-bumps from the opening scene in A Clockwork Orange.

He is a perfectionist and it is well known he would shoot scene 100's of times till he felt it was right or just to shoot as many times as possible so that he had a lot to choose from much to the annoyance of his cast...:D

I find his camera work to be excellent, his forte being wide and distant shots so as to get as much background and goings on as possible within shots. Full metal Jacket being a good example of a film where he used that type of filming. Also for anyone that seen A Clockwork Orange the opening scene with Alex and the camera panning outwards as the scene went along getting shots of him and his gang.

Much of Kubricks career was dogged with critisism by the media but he was still respected as a director and film-maker. Not that Warner Bros cared as Kubrick was often allowed to do what ever he pleased and had no pressure to make films, which suited his reclusive nature and perfectionist personality. I really can't criticize any of his work except maybe in the endings of his films which he liked to end with a question mark and leave it up to the viewer to interpret what they think will happen etc and really just leave them asking questions whether it be a moral question or a "what happened next" question which is great for some and lame for others.

Anyone say a word against Kubrick and I'll skin you alive. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,403 Posts
Like GaGa, I can claim to have seen almost all of his films, he really was a true artist I guess - committed to film like few other directors. He produced a couple of masterpieces, not without flaws, but almost all of his movies are devilishly fresh and post-modern.. and to think how revolutionary they may have been when they were first produced... Full Metal Jacket was not quite my thing, even though it probably ranks as the best war movie ever along with his own Spartacus. The Shining, 2001, and A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove are my favourites. The cinematography indeed is quite perfected, with closeups and lareger-than life commitment into a single set-up that really comes off on the screen. Also, brilliant balance of representational and abstract elements of film, and ofcourse a keen ear for music and atmospherics. Brilliant.
 

·
Fine Gentlemen
Joined
·
15,599 Posts
Tim said:
Stanley Kubrick...

Genius visionary or ripe for the looney bin? Or perhaps a bit of both?
Certainly his work ethic was looney...but his work was genius.

I think a lot of people exaggerate his work to be distasteful in a way and so it influences people to think it is. At the time, A Clockwork Orange was recieved with controversy, but I think it was really exaggerative violence and was never really gruesome or as ultra-violent as claimed, even for the time the film was made I wouldn't say it was too extreme and graphic.

The gang fight in the film for example, was like the old Batman and Robin series with comedy fighting. I think it's more to do with the topics rather then on screen violence. It was dealing with rape, crime and rehabilitation of criminals etc these topics were the base for the controversy rather then the images which are rather tame.

If you want to talk about controversy at the time there are many more films which were out around the same time but were less controversial because they never got as much attention as Kubricks work, one film director in particular called Pier Paolo Pasolini. Anyone familiar with his work will know he was and is by far more controversial then Kubrick could ever dream about. Kubrick has a limit to what he would film he had tasteful limits. Pasolini on the other hand enjoyed looking at society and everything wrong with it and people's vices within that society and making films about them. Some would call sick and a perverted man with no morales and ideal's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,807 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Nice to read all of the thoughts about the great man.

A few years ago I read an article about Kubrick written by someone who had done some collaborative work with Kubrick over the years and had visited Kubrick a few times in England. Based on the author's descriptions, Kubrick was indeed quite strange and sometimes even seemed to be out of touch with reality. But I suppose it takes a very special mind to come up with these very special films.

Some people never understood what the excitement was about with Kubrick, but that was because the point of his films was not to serve as two hours of absent-minded entertainment, where one could just put the brain on cruise-control and space out for a while. Kubrick's work had a purpose and asked the audience to think. The interpretive endings are evidence of this.

Kubrick wanted to take the audience on a journey to his own reality, but one that was not the cliche fantasy land or sci-fi setting. While he was not always sure of the destination himself, he knew exactly where he did not want to go, as one actor put it. And to convey his vision just as it was intended, his perfectionism literally demanded that everything turn out perfect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55,920 Posts
i think i have seen all of kubrick movies, except 2001 a spacey odyssey (as it was always late in the night, i always fell in sleep before the end).

i liked all of them, just a little deception for "eyes wide shut" i thought it would be more sulfurous without moral ending, so i was a little disappointed.

i must say that "lolita" was the film the most faithful at a book. and the performance of peter sellers was amazing, he almost stole the vedette of the principal character (i don't remember the name of the actor).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,068 Posts
respects to you all!


Kubrick master, and even his last work A.I. in which he could not complete was a master piece imho!
 

·
Fine Gentlemen
Joined
·
15,599 Posts
Che said:
respects to you all!


Kubrick master, and even his last work A.I. in which he could not complete was a master piece imho!
:( Would have been great that...nothing against Spielberg but I expected better...:depress:. I know Kubrick and him were excellent friends but I didn't feel it was right for him to continue the project...:depress:
 

·
Fine Gentlemen
Joined
·
15,599 Posts
Tinto said:
Oh.

I love lots of movies shot in black and white, and I can't stand it when they digitally add colour.
Yeah I agree but audiences won't go to watch black and white movies...so to cater for them they add colour to old films.

Interesting enough to shoot a film in black and white is more expensive then shooting it in colour....:dazed: true fact...:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,403 Posts
I've never seen a colorised black and white film. What are those? Example?

Yeah GaGa it is indeed more expensive with proper black&white cameras, but not with digital ones.. and most black & white films made today don't use old-fashioned technology to create the same affect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,403 Posts
Weird. I wonder why highly influential films like Pepe Le Moko weren't colorised, perhaps because they were highly influential? And what about films by Truffaut and Godard, even Kubrick.. why wasn't Lolita colorised? I think it's mostly cheap films that end up being modified.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,403 Posts
I guess in this case I mean - unimportant and unregarded remakes and random commercial flicks, rather than classics like say, Metropolis or Pepe Le Moko - which were never colorised. Why not? I think it's because it would damage the ambience of such influential motion pictures and would be disrespectful of the producers. On the other hand, comparitively "cheap films" are there to be colorised.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55,920 Posts
i see:)
i agree with you, black and white movie has undefinisable charm, but "jour de fête" is not a cheap movie. i think jacques tati wanted to colorise it, his wish has been respected, don't remember who took the decision.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top