The Genius Of Kubrick

Well to a degree you’re correct. However when “pressed against the wall” as Kubrick would say, he would give us some insight into the film and thus reveal more than he normally would have. Although studying, researching the man himself as I have done really makes a difference in understanding his outlook on things (sometimes I think I need to get a life spending so much time on this. lol).

Over time I’m understanding more and more of Barry Lyndon as well. And yes it is outstanding. I personally do consider it one of his best (although practically every film of his is a masterpiece so its hard to classify exactly where this fits into the puzzle). In fact I may have time to watch it tommorrow :slight_smile:

IMO I’ve never seen a director more skilled with his camera than Kubrick. Sad he’s not alive to continue his work.

Sorry so late in responding to this thread. I just now saw it. Wanted to say that the most amazing thing about Kubrick’s films is that ALL have withstood the tests of time. They have not aged. I can still sit down and watch Barry Lyndon, Dr. Strangeglove (has anyone mentioned Full Metal Jacket?), et al and they all still have retained their brilliance. Amazing. One thing to notice in the greater majority of Kubrick’s films is his brilliant ability to employ “silence”. Most of his movies are very quiet compared to most other movies of the time. Wonderful.

While I agree that Eyes Wide Shut isn't his best. I believe it to be better than most movies, despite it's flaws. AND after much thought, I believe the main flaw to be the primary leads: Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise. Perhaps it would have been better to cast two other relative unknowns so that the audience could have been more drawn into the spiraling decline of the center character (played by Tom Cruise). Just a thought.

But, you know? Even if Kubrick was a grand filmmaker, my favorite will always be David Lean. Always. Second favorite, Akira Kurosawa.

Quite obivously Kubrick is on my #1 list. It takes several years for Kubrick’s films ot get understood. Even then most are never completely understood by the vast majority of filmgoers. Perhaps we might see Eyes Wide Shut in a different light later on. The first time I saw Eyes Wide Shut I was disappointed. After three viewings now it has improved do to a greater understanding of the film. As Spielberg stated once, “Kubrick films tend to grow on you have to see them more thna once”. In fact after Spielberg viewed The Shining for the first time he didn’t like it. Later he stated that “I’ve since seen The Shining 25 times as its one of my favorite pictures.”
Martin Scorcese also stated something almost very similar.

I think the use of silence in his films actually helps to inhance other sequences when music, dialogue, or action may be occuring during one of his films. A principle of contrast; something that is related to our mental and emotional processes (many films today try to slam you over the head with noise and anarchy which can become increasingly annoying very quickly).

I think perhaps we will see Eyes Wide Shut differently sometime down the road. I already am to a degree. Lastly, I agree that Cruise nad Kidman are not top notch actors by (any means) but Eyes Wide Shut is almost purely an “arthouse” film and would have been impossible to sell without their appearence. I do think, however, that Kubrick sqeezed every possible drop of talent they had (unfortunately the possess little IMO) in them. Everytime you see a Kubrick film keep thinking, you may discover how much you missed originally. I know I have…many times.

Wow, good thoughts, cloakmanor. Kubrick’s use of silence is exactly what I like about his movies. Silence (in a Kubrick film) is much more of a effective “apostrophe” than the usual loud “Dolby” sound effect or “rockin’ music” in most films today.

But I will be watching Eyes Wide Shut again - a movie that makes me think long after I have seen it deserves a second, third chance. Oh yeah.

Cool Patricia. All these are only my opinions but I do appreciate your interest in the subject :slight_smile:

In fact Kubrick’s use of blues and reds in Eyes Wide Shut (and red in The Shining) is very interesting. Particularly red. Next time you watch look out for this color and notice the placement of it in various places. Hint: Red in a Kubrick is a devious symbol (hope this helps).

T’anks, cloakmanor. I’m going to keep my eye out for his use of colors (in EWS). And I know your correct - this very use of color is clearly evident in The Shining. God, I love that movie. Anywhoos, just read your comment regarding George Lucas and Star Wars. And I agree (personally, am more of a Empire Strikes Back fan), I also believe Lucas is a horrible writer/director and should be relegated to just producing and let the real talent do the job.

No prblem Patricia. Interestly enough I find that The Empire Strikes Back was easily the best directed and most enjoyable of the trilogy. The reason is this: The late Irvin Kirshner (who was already a veteran director) directed The Empire Strikes Back.

However, Episode IV and Return of the Jedi was directed by George Lucas. Yes the later one has Richard Marqand as director but he was simply a “puppet” for George Lucas (as Marqand had little experience before this and could be controlled by Lucas). This explains the lack of quality (IMO) in Episodes IV and VI. Even David Prowse (Darth Vader) commented that The Empire Strikes Back was easily the best of the best directed of the series and that Return of the Jedi was THE worst film he was ever a part of. To find more info read this interview with David Prowse at Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

You’ll obviously notice the glowing approval Prowse gave to Stanley Kubrick. As far as The Shining is concerned I consider it the best “horror film” ever conceived. (despite fans of Steven King’s disapproval of the film)
There is so much ot this film and os subtely done much is sadly missed. One day I hope to right an essay on the film and possibly even get it published (we’ll see).

Lastly, it is interesting (and frankly unfair) how often a Kubrick film is overlooked at the oscars. The reason for this is duvious. When Kubrick left Hollywood to film Lolita in 1961 he stayed away from the Hollywood scene for the rest of his life. In other words he refused to “play the game”. The oscars are sadly almost nothing but politics. Eve nthose who do not enjoy Kubrick films admit that the production designs and cinemaphotography are nothing less than incredible in each of his films (particularly ones filmed in color).

IN A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut the listing is not for “cinemaphotographer” but for “lighting cameraman”. The reason for this is that in the latter case Kubrick himself is doing almost all the cinemaphotography himself (although he plays a huge role in this process on each of his films) and every hand-held camera shot you see Kubrick is even being his own cameraman.

Just thought I’d add these tidbits in case you’re interested :slight_smile: Take care!

Dude, I know ALL about the reasoning as to why Empire was the BEST of them all - and also as to why Empire is considered one of the best sci fi flicks. Yes, Kirshner deserves MUCH of the credit. He added to the cardboard, stereotypes created in Star Wars. He made them into fully realized, 3-dimensional characters. Gone was the whining “farm boy” brat, Skywalker. In his place was a young, brash man who was worthy of being the center of the Star Wars “mythology”. Oh, I can go on and on. And I’m sure that you can, too, cloakmanor.

As for Kubrick never receiving praise at the Oscars. Yeah, too bad. But I never once thought that was what he was shooting for. He (as well as Lean and Kurosawa) was striving for something beyond celluloid entertainment. Films that got into your psyche. For this, I am so grateful.

Oh, and I saw David Prowse at San Diego, signing autographs. He looked good. Thanks, for the great discussion, cloakmanor!

Yes I’m sure you did I just like talking about it. hehe. And yes you bet he wasn’t trying to obtain oscars. That was the furthest thing from his mind. Just an interesting piece of info to me (The oscars being mostly about politics is reason enough for me to have zero interest in them).

BTW I’m going ot see Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey this Monday. woohoo! I’m too young to have seen it at the hteater when it came out so this will be an excellent oppurtunity to do so. Too bad they never gave it a major re-release it during 2001 like they originally planned too (though I’m not surprised one bit).

I’m with you Patricia. I’ve VERY grateful I stumbled upon Kubrick films years ago. Changed the way I view the art of filmmaking forever. Too bad there are not more like like him. Which Kubrick films have you seen at the theater and also period? (sorry about going on and on).

You guys are great! I’m learning a lot. I just wanted to go back to a question I posed in my original post.


When you see “2001” this Monday, C, you’ll be amazed too! (or maybe not, with your knowledge of Kubrick!)


How in the world did his vision of the “look” of Technology even surpass what we have in reality today; while the Technology seen in films made years later are only a step above the 50’s “B” movies? I don’t think that the answer is just the money that the Studios spent…I really think that it has a lot to do with Kubrick himself…


Mufasa

cloakmanor: wow - be nice to see 2001 on the beeg screen. However, thanks to DVD technology, I can see it in all of it’s glory (enhanced as well) at home. I will be getting the Limited Edition ($53) soon. I think I’m preferring the DVDs’ over theater (especially for movies like 2001, Citizen Kane, any Kurosawa or Lean film and there’s more) - since you get all the behind the scenes and making of. Which I prefer. I’m wierd, I like to be able to “deconstruct” a movie and “rebuild” it, step by step, in my head as I watch it. DVDs’ have really stepped up this “habit”.

As for Kubrick flicks seen in a theater: Lolita, Dr. Strangeglove, Full Metal Jacket and The Shining. There are a couple of small theaters here in Portland that show old/classic movies and I have tried my best to see 'em there. Oh, here's something to take note, and I'm not sure if you've mentioned it: when you see 2001, notice how HAL 9000 is more "human" than the astronauts. I always notice that about 2001 whenever I watch it.

Mufasa: well, thanks to you, cloakmanor and I have been able to have this discussion! A couple of words come to mind whenever I'm thinking of a "Kubrick film": "clean", "uncluttered". Even though there is so much going on "under" the surface of one of his films, the immediate surface is so "serene" in it's starkness. Really, I'm having a lack of words right now (coffee has not kicked in). Anywhoos, yes, alot of that vision of the future in 2001 is more than likely due to Kubrick's vision/ideals. There IS a certain timelessness to the movie, isn't there? Although, some of the "look" could be partly due to his cinematographer (on this and The Shining), John Alcott (sp?). What people have got to realize that movies, especially sci fi/ fantasy epics with alot of makeup and visual FX, are a collaborative effort with the director, cinematographer, and visual fx guys. Kubrick had that "magic" group that just clicked and were able to create this movie (wonderful movie, too).

To Patricia…“Cloakmanor moves to Portland”
:stuck_out_tongue: Since I cannot read ones mind I’ll post the following for the sake of discussion:

I agre with you Patricia it is very interesting how HAL not only possesses human characteristics but eventually becomes “so human” that human fault, pride, and fear ends up becoming his own destruction. As with all of Kubrick’s work his insistance on tackling the evil side of man comes through, in this way, via a computer that has been endowed with human characteristics. Apparently just enough to cause a human deed (one of evil; thus murdering the scientists in hybernation and killing Dr Frank Poole).

As you pointed out Patricia I too find it interesting how mechanized humans in the film appear. On one hand Kubrick seems to be implicating the danger of becoming “cold” and “detacthed” from our human side (as we all need emotional support and love) and yet he points out our dual nature by showing, in the form of HAL9000, the fault of becoming too human (mans dual nature is perhaps the most obvious of Kubrickian symbolism within his films).

I’m also in agreement with you observation of how Kubrick’s films seem so “uncluttered and clean” yet so full of story. I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed this to this degree from other directors. Kubrick obviously did not take his audience for idiots and wanted them to thin kas they viewed his films (especially since Kubrick did nothing but think. lol). At the same time asking us questions (partially via ambiguity) as he had so many he wanted answered. Perhaps hoping someone would have the answer? In the end this cost him dollars as so many wrote off his films as "empty (a strange charge) and boring.

John Alcott was a fantastic cinema photographer. Alcott stated that “Kubrick realy do see eye to eye on photograhpy” and I think this was the key in their collaberation.

Secondly Kubrick was always puching Alcott to give everything he had (as he did with every single person involved with his projects); helping to achieve close to perfection on each film. Also Kubrick was always the one setting up the camera, deciding where it should go, how it should be used in the scene, etc etc. The lighting was, for the most part however, left up to Alcott which he did brilliantly. Since Kubrick was a professional stills photographer early in life he obviously knew his onions. His films would never had turned out so good without Kubrick himself at the helm as most of what you see in the film is his ideas and creation. He really knew how to push people to their utter limit to achieve what he sat out to do. But nevertheless, as you stated Patricia, it is a collaberation and it’s wonderful to see them all working with Kubrick to create such brilliant films.

To Mufasa–Stanley Kubrick was so demanding on realism regarding the effects that he not only hired the top men in the business but even workers from NASA to collaberate with him on the film. His insistance on perfection was well described by effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull: “His level of quality control was astonomically near perfection and as a young man I found it hard. His mind was so insatiable and so active that he could barely sleep, he could barely stop. I found that Stanley Kubrick lived his work 7 days a week almost 24 hours a day and I think he had a hard time keepng up with his own intellect.”

It is also fascinating to realize that Kubrick created, on the set of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the very first important visial effects team. Incidently many of the people who worked with Kubrick on this flim in the visual effects department went on to become household names in the industry. Working on all three of the first Star Wars projects with George Lucas. Even with these brilliant men working for him the film would never have looked this good without Stanley Kubrick.

Okay this post is too long. Sorry. hehe

cloak: Were you able to see “2001” this weekend? I take it that the effects and graphics are still standing the test of time? Let us know!


(C: what is the origin/derivation of the nic “cloakmanor”? Just curious…)

Yes on Monday I saw the film (sorry for not posting earlier). It was fantastic to see Kubrick’s masterpiece (and any Kubrick iflm for that matter) on the big screen :slight_smile: The only complaints I have were at the beginning and end of the film. The filmstock was pretty well scratched up and somewhat saturated with artifacts. However the rest of the film (for the most part) was pretty clean and looked just beautiful on 70mm :slight_smile: Amazingly the effects and production design look even more detailed and realistic than on DVD despite a closer look at the small details that one would not otherwise notice. 34 years later this film’s effects are still incredible. Another intrigueing thing is how much more silence in the film seems to aguement the scenes when sound is reintroduced in the next.
Everyone was talking about the film, its meaning, effects, Stanley Kubrick etc during hte intermission and after the film. I so enjoy the mental stimulation while viewing one of his works (I’m also surprised at how much having to contemplate his films has enabled me to understand other films to a much higher degree). I sure hope I can see it on the big screen again someday! :slight_smile:

Oh Mufasa, I neglected to add that this engagement was not a sellout (however it has been over most of the country from what I understand). Some thunderstorms cropped up before the gate opened so perhaps this kept some filmgoers away. Other than that it was a very successful evening :slight_smile:

cloakmanor: darn swell. Glad that it was WELL worth it. Someday, someday SOON, I hope that I can also see it on the big screen. Actually I really would love to see The Shining again on the big screen (with better sound) sigh. Anywhoos, thanks for “reporting” back on this event!

No problem Patricia. Frankly I hope to see The Shining on the big screen myself someday. Hopefully next year they’ll show it down here for us all to see. I hope so.