topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
	Independent Talk about the world of independent film.	42

Stanley Kubrick - overrated?
	Topic by: kamapuaa Posted: November 23, 2003 - 2:00 PM PST Last Reply: October 14, 2004 - 2:13 PM PDT

page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7      prev | next

author	topic: Stanley Kubrick - overrated?
hamano	post #61  on September 14, 2004 - 8:11 AM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 7:27 AM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > Gonna have to disagree with you a bit here. Casual would be a complete gloss over. A Strauss waltz implies grace and majesty (rather than awe and wonder). It was an original and brilliant choice but I can't say it's casual. By a complete gloss do you mean "no music"??? How would THAT imply "casual" exactly? But you're making my point for me. A waltz is a social dance... it could be incorporated in a more formal orchestral piece or a ballet or opera score, but a Strauss waltz is something that was played in the most popular dance halls (ball rooms, what have you) in contemporary Vienna. Strauss waltzes weren't played in concert halls until Pops orchestras became common (they like John Williams music, too!). So I think Kubrick is showing the coordination of the shuttle to the rotating station to be a fun dance between two ordinary everyday people, rather than an intricately choreographed dance performed for an audience by two professional dancers. The visuals and music suck the viewer in to INCLUDE the audience in the playful scene ("come dance with us") rather than putting distance between the audience and the film ("watch us do a pretty dance"). If you're the type of audience member who thinks of all "classical" music as being the same, maybe it's hard for you to see the distinction. But I think the choice of a Strauss waltz here is very deliberate. Strauss wasn't the "Waltz King" for nothing. Even if you don't know musical history, if you're sensitive to music I think you'll clearly see how using The Blue Danube here involves the audience in a different way than if Kubrick had used, say, Tchaikovsky's The Waltz of the Flowers from The Nutcracker. I guess what I really don't understand is how you can say that "grace and majesty" and "awe and wonder" are exclusive of one another... Don't you feel "awe and wonder" when you behold something or someone with "grace and majesty"??? In either case my use of the term "casual" has nothing to do with that. > Typical liberal egg-head whining. Why do you intellectual-elite hate fun so much? America is fun. Hating fun is anti-american. No intellectual-elite egg-heads here! I'm anti-elitist and anti-intellectual so I can smell'em from a mile away. There are some pretentious wanna-bes here on this thread, but I don't see anyone like dwhudson or dpowers or even underdog.... (just kidding guys!) > So you aren't really pro-Kubrick as much as anti-Lucas. Like you're pro-abortion. I'm just saying that I can see how important and influential Kubrick has been in film, but that personally he's not to my taste. I'm a secular humanist magical realist sentimental fuddy duddy, and Kubrick is none of those... Kubrick DOES have some sense of "grace and majesty" and "awe and wonder" however. Both, not one or the other.
hamano	post #62  on September 14, 2004 - 8:52 AM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 7:27 AM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > So you aren't really pro-Kubrick as much as anti-Lucas. Hmmm.... maybe you should just read this thread from the beginning to see how not "really pro-Kubrick" I've been all along... I don't think I've misrepresented myself... Oh, and I take back what I said. underdog WAS here on this thread, right from page one!
woozy	post #63  on September 14, 2004 - 9:23 AM PDT   > > If you're the type of audience member who thinks of all "classical" music as being the same, maybe it's hard for you to see the distinction. Oh, right. That's it. Lump us Lucas lovers together with rednecks and uneducating rubes the world over while while you la-dee-da Kubrick lovers are oh so smart. Well, if your so smart then ask yourslef this, when was the last time a Kubrick fan stood in line for thirty hors in a Darth Maul mask for the opening of Eyes Wide Shut? Well consider this. Star Wars I the phantom menace made more in its opening weekend than Paths of Glory has made in its entire film life. In a college poll of freshman male masturbatory fantasies was Princess Leia in a gold bikini ranked #3 while Alex struggling for the topless volunteer only ranked #7. Come opening day of Star Wars III, I'll be laughing all the way to the front row while you Kubrick lovers will be mourning the aniversary of your pervert "the defining shot" king's death. Roll, Lucas, Roll! Although I have to admit you are the only Kubrik supporter on this board with any intellect and intellegence. Some of you buddies are really out there. Better straighten them out. Meanwhile I pray for braindead entertainment, the death of art, and loads and loads of illiterate teenagers. Simper Film Swars '03 --comcastTckets4me
Cinenaut	post #64  on September 14, 2004 - 9:43 AM PDT   I wouldn't give up Kubrick or Lucas, but I do want some better science fiction films. Star Wars dealt a heavy blow to quality science fiction films. Now THX 1138, that's a good science fiction film.
woozy	post #65  on September 14, 2004 - 9:52 AM PDT   > By a complete gloss do you mean "no music"??? How would THAT imply "casual" exactly? Okay, serious (such as it is) woozy is back. I guess I don't get what you mean by casual (not that I care all that much). If the idea is to express the idea we are living in a world where space travel is all very common place (which I don't think *was* the idea of 2001 and I'm not sure why we got to this point) than a space ship should be treated the same way as a bus or airplane is treated in non-sci-fi movies. >But you're making my point for me. A waltz is a social dance... it could be incorporated in a more formal orchestral piece or a ballet or opera score, but a Strauss waltz is something that was played in the most popular dance halls (ball rooms, what have you) in contemporary Vienna. > Strauss waltzes weren't played in concert halls until Pops orchestras became common (they like John Williams music, too!). Which is what the '69 viewer would associate them with. As waltzes had been out of style for sixty-five years by then. But you are right. Kubrick always goes below the surface so I hadn't considered the significance of the music. In fact I was always impressed that instead of doing the easy route of sci-fi music and brass triumphant trumpets he pick music that is right and strips percieved association. ...rather than putting distance between the audience and the film ("watch us do a pretty dance"). Good point. > > If you're the type of audience member who thinks of all "classical" music as being the same, maybe it's hard for you to see the distinction. Hey! Forego the pejuritive assumptions (except when they apply to mci4tx and KPman1) and I'll do the same for you! I know... something ... about classical music. Well, perhaps no more than the average math nerd but... please, when in doubt, give credit. >I think you'll clearly see how using The Blue Danube here involves the audience in a different way than if Kubrick had used, say, Tchaikovsky's The Waltz of the Flowers from The Nutcracker. I agree. But the Waltz of the Flowers is an odd choice. Too delicate. > > I guess what I really don't understand is how you can say that "grace and majesty" and "awe and wonder" are exclusive of one another... I never said they were. But I thought you were describing "casual" (although perhaps I don't understand why we are discussing casualality or what you mean by it). I meant typical sci-fi music goes for awe and wonder (which so for as I know *is* mutually exclussive of casual). Perhaps if I knew why we are discussing "casual" I'll understand your point better. >In either case my use of the term "casual" has nothing to do with that. I don't consider a waltz "casual". I consider running for a bus and doing laundary casual. But I don't think this was the point of the music. (It'd be a dull film if it were.)
woozy	post #66  on September 14, 2004 - 9:54 AM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 9:43 AM PDT Cinenaut wrote: > --------------------------------- > I wouldn't give up Kubrick or Lucas, but I do want some better science fiction films. Star Wars dealt a heavy blow to quality science fiction films. > Ooh, yes. I'm so sick of space operas. I'd love to see an adaptation of Octavia Butler's Patternist series.
hamano	post #67  on September 14, 2004 - 9:57 AM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 9:23 AM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > Well, if your so smart then ask yourslef this, when was the last time a Kubrick fan stood in line for thirty hors in a Darth Maul mask for the opening of Eyes Wide Shut? I don't get it... wouldn't they have stood in line looking like this? And how are those "costumes" exactly? I confess I'm a bit puzzled by both Star Wars AND Kubrick fanatics...
hamano	post #68  on September 14, 2004 - 10:10 AM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 9:52 AM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > >In either case my use of the term "casual" has nothing to do with that. > > I don't consider a waltz "casual". I consider running for a bus and doing laundary casual. EXACTLY. Until that mission leaves for Jupiter, space travel is being depicted that way by Kubrick. That's my point. Casual/mundane - running for a bus, doing laundry, going to Starbucks Casual/mundane - riding a shuttle to orbit, using a space toilet, getting a drink from a space stewardess And I DO consider a waltz "casual".... Certainly The Blue Danube is "popular" music! What, Glenn Miller isn't casual? Duke Ellington? Grateful Dead?
hamano	post #69  on September 14, 2004 - 10:37 AM PDT   OK, here's what I mean by casual. 2001 depicts a "future" (ha ha) where clearly there is a system in place where one could very casually walk into the Pan Am (ha ha) Shuttle Port (your bus terminal, woozy), buy a ticket and fly up to the space station, and relax in the Space Hilton lounge while you wait for your connection to the Moon. That's what I mean by casual. It's really "the future" because you see people doing these cool things, and they're just going about it like it's just part of everyday life for them. And the use of the Blue Danube? Casual. Just like the way United Airlines used Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue as THEIR theme song in commercials and airport muzak (or how the Cattlemen's Beef Board uses Hoedown by Aaron Copland). > I agree. But the Waltz of the Flowers is an odd choice. Too delicate. I'm glad you see my point about the "come dance with us" VS. "watch our pretty dance"... Waltz of the Flowers is not an odd choice (How is that too delicate? I'm not talking about The Dance of the Sugarplum Fairy!!!) but not a good choice precisely because it's an interpretation of social dance music for a ballet ("watch us dance"). It's sentimental and catchy but it doesn't quite make you want to jump up and waltz the way The Blue Danube does... it's more "illustrative" music... for artistic interpretive movement rather than social participatory movement. (But it's subtle... it's still a WALTZ for chrissake!)
hamano	post #70  on September 14, 2004 - 10:52 AM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 9:52 AM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > > If you're the type of audience member who thinks of all "classical" music as being the same, maybe it's hard for you to see the distinction. > > Hey! Forego the pejuritive assumptions (except when they apply to mci4tx and KPman1) and I'll do the same for you! I know... something ... about classical music. Well, perhaps no more than the average math nerd but... please, when in doubt, give credit. I'm not being pejorative... just saying that as a matter of fact, a lot of people DO lump all classical music together. Did you ever think of waltzes written for the dance hall/ballroom (The Blue Danube) as being distinct and functionally different from waltzes written for stage (The Waltz of the Flowers)? Did you ever consider that MOBY might write some techno specifically for dancing, and other techno music for home/personal listening? Confess!
woozy	post #71  on September 14, 2004 - 11:36 AM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 10:37 AM PDT hamano wrote: > --------------------------------- > OK, here's what I mean by casual. > > 2001 depicts a "future" (ha ha) where clearly there is a system in place where one could very casually walk into the Pan Am (ha ha) Shuttle Port (your bus terminal, woozy), buy a ticket and fly up to the space station, and relax in the Space Hilton lounge while you wait for your connection to the Moon. That's what I mean by casual. Oookay. First of all, I'm not sure a "casual" depiction is what Kubrik is going for. I'm not sure "casual" is nesc. a good way to depict this. > And the use of the Blue Danube? Casual. Just like the way United Airlines used Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue as THEIR theme song in commercials and airport muzak (or how the Cattlemen's Beef Board uses Hoedown by Aaron Copland). > But those are Comercials for airlines and Beef so their depiction of airlines or beef isn't casual. If you were watching a modern day drama and the hero gets on an airplane and the director blared out Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue as the hero descends the aisle and takes his seat and spends eleven minutes on a scene where the stewardess comes out and serves him a drink, and then when the hero lands and has a dinner in a restaurant and the director close-cut to the hero's huge red juicy steak as Copland swells rambunctiously as he chews every bite you'd wonder, huh???? Maybe the director had a point. Maybe the director is Kubrick and he specializes in the slow take to establish the scene. But I wouldn't call this "casual". > > I agree. But the Waltz of the Flowers is an odd choice. Too delicate. > > I'm glad you see my point about the "come dance with us" VS. "watch our pretty dance"... Waltz of the Flowers is not an odd choice (How is that too delicate? I'm not talking about The Dance of the Sugarplum Fairy!!!) oops. My mistake. I wouldn't have notice had it been a "formal" vs. "casual" waltz unless it was pointed out. It's a brilliant observation. I think Kubrik was brilliant to have a graceful moving beautiful waltz at all instead of the usual triumphant fanfare in every other sci-fi movie before or since. > but not a good choice precisely because it's an interpretation of social dance music for a ballet ("watch us dance"). It's sentimental and catchy but it doesn't quite make you want to jump up and waltz the way The Blue Danube does... it's more "illustrative" music... This makes it an even better choice. Thanks for pointing it out. Anyhow, I don't think "casual" is a good word to describe Kubrik. The shots of the mountains and black screen "MONDAY" in the shining weren't casual even though the mountains and it happening to be monday are routine events. > ---------------------------------
woozy	post #72  on September 14, 2004 - 11:40 AM PDT   > I'm not being pejorative... just saying that as a matter of fact, a lot of people DO lump all classical music together. Yeah, but assuming the lowest common denominator in your communiques is just bad manners. The average american is dumb as a post but its rude to assume the person you are talking to is (even though the odds aren't in his favor). >Did you ever think of waltzes written for the dance hall/ballroom (The Blue Danube) as being distinct and functionally different from waltzes written for stage (The Waltz of the Flowers)? Uh, yeah.... My fondest memories from college were the quarterly waltzes, especially the halloween waltz... > Did you ever consider that MOBY might write some techno specifically for dancing, and other techno music for home/personal listening? Confess! Uh, yeah...
hamano	post #73  on September 14, 2004 - 12:32 PM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 11:36 AM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > > On September 14, 2004 - 10:37 AM PDT hamano wrote: > > --------------------------------- > > OK, here's what I mean by casual. > > > > 2001 depicts a "future" (ha ha) where clearly there is a system in place where one could very casually walk into the Pan Am (ha ha) Shuttle Port (your bus terminal, woozy), buy a ticket and fly up to the space station, and relax in the Space Hilton lounge while you wait for your connection to the Moon. That's what I mean by casual. > > Oookay. First of all, I'm not sure a "casual" depiction is what Kubrik is going for. I'm not sure "casual" is nesc. a good way to depict this. I think he WAS going for a "casual" depiction... Look at these definitions for casual. At the beginning of 2001 Kubrick transitions from a bone thrown in the air to a Pan Am space shuttle about to dock with a space station. People are relaxed, they behave like passengers on a plane going from NY to Boston. There are familiar corporate logos all over the place, Hilton, Pan Am, Howard Johnsons, Bell. All this functions to show how mundane and everyday and cursory and nonchalant and effortless it has become to fly up to orbit and catch a connecting flight to the Moon. All this in order to provide a context for and to contrast with the epic and special journey our astronauts and HAL will later take to Jupiter. It's absolutely essential that the scheduled flights from Earth to Moon is depicted this way because it shows the viewer what human civilization IS at that moment in time. Not at its best, not at its worst, but what IS. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the casualness or deliberateness of Kubrick the director! He is deliberately showing us a point in human history where getting to the moon is pretty easy. What shatters this casual mundane complacent human existence is the discovery of the black monolith on the moon. That's when things begin to change. That's when everything that was fun and comfortable (man's creations waltzing together in complete harmony) gets tossed out for an uncertain destiny. So according to the dictionary definition of the word "casual" I stand by what I'm saying, although I wouldn't have chosen the word myself, maybe (kamapuaa brought the word into this discussion... I said "space travel is shown to be an everyday, mundane thing" and he replied "casual space travel can be seen just as strongly in serialized 30's sci-fi"). Of course there is also quite a bit of satirical social commentary thrown in this part also, especially from the point-of-view of someone during the '60s, about how space has been commercialized or co-opted by corporate interests. The familiar logos give the setting a comfortable, lived-in feeling that is the illusion created by most American shopping malls, many urban waterfront developments and most airports. People in the '60s were afraid we'd end up like this in 2001, and hey, we're really actually living it in 2004! So now you see why I brought up Josie and the Pussycats (pointed satirical commentary in Josie about corporate sponsorship and product placement, if you took your little daughter to see it!).
KPman1	post #74  on September 14, 2004 - 1:00 PM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 9:43 AM PDT Cinenaut wrote: > --------------------------------- > I wouldn't give up Kubrick or Lucas, but I do want some better science fiction films. Star Wars dealt a heavy blow to quality science fiction films. > > Now THX 1138, that's a good science fiction film. > --------------------------------- Like there were so many science fiction films out there and all of sudden Star Wars came and they stopped making them. Science fiction movies have rarely ever been high quality.
Cinenaut	post #75  on September 14, 2004 - 2:29 PM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 1:00 PM PDT KPman1 wrote: > --------------------------------- > Like there were so many science fiction films out there and all of sudden Star Wars came and they stopped making them. Science fiction movies have rarely ever been high quality. > --------------------------------- Ha! Good point. I guess quality is always hard to find, but once in awhile you come across a Day the Earth Stood Still or The Thing. You have to admit that Star Wars spawned countless bad imitators, from The Black Hole, through Battlestar Gallactica. Mad Max spawned countless bad post-apocolyptic movies an The Matrix spawned lots of bad virtual reality movies, including its own sequels. Pop will eat itself!
Catullus	post #76  on September 14, 2004 - 2:52 PM PDT   George Lucas is a great director? don't make me laugh myself to death. Evidence: Phantom Menace and Clone Wars George Lucas may have done a few good movies but now he has 0 talent whatsoever. Basically his movies stink.
woozy	post #77  on September 14, 2004 - 4:00 PM PDT   Argh. Lost my message. Okay, I didn't get what was meant by "casual". And now that I do, I think it's pretty irrelevant. Anyhow the decision to depict space travel as gee-whiz to the audience or as mundane to the characters or to depict it as mundane to the character via a deliberate painstaking developement is really the role of the writer and this isn't that revolutionary. Pretty much I agree with every thing you said hamano. I thought you were saying it was depicted casually rather than depicted *as* casual. The more I talk the more and more I like Kubrick. > So now you see why I brought up Josie and the Pussycats (pointed satirical commentary in Josie about corporate sponsorship and product placement, if you took your little daughter to see it!). > --------------------------------- Josie and the Pussycats isn't about corporate sponsorship, dckweed! It's about girls in cute cat ears having adventures while on tour or while lost in outer space and uncovering robbery schemes and then singing cut little hastily written songs. (sorry, couldn't resist the dckweed comment)
KPman1	post #78  on September 14, 2004 - 4:04 PM PDT   Well, Lucas definately is not a consistent. That's for sure. It's been ages since I've seen the original Star Wars. I hope the extra effects doesn't screw it up. Somewhat on topic (OK, not really): I saw Barry Lyndon recently. I didn't like it that much.
woozy	post #79  on September 14, 2004 - 4:11 PM PDT   > Like there were so many science fiction films out there and all of sudden Star Wars came and they stopped making them. Science fiction movies have rarely ever been high quality. > --------------------------------- I think pre-WWII sci-fi was escapism for kiddies and considered insipid and lowbrow and a doubt many of the classic sci-fi authors were even involved in them. Post war sci-fi had a resurgance as science and the wonder of the atomic age came back to the publics attention and there was a lot of anti-communist parables and sci-fi sort of blended with campy monster movies which appealled to new age angst. There was some serious sci-fi (Fahrenheit 451 and Alphaville for example) but the genre was still rather camp. In the 60s sci-fi was considered pretty passe but their were a few serious attempts such as 2001 and Planet of the Apes (hard to believe now but this was considered a serious film when it came out) and the TV series Star Trek. Star Wars though was extreme retro to the days of escapism for kids and suddenly folks remembered, "oh, yeah. B movies. They *were* fun." And now sci-fi is basically consider block buster action thriller stuff to appeal to the 16-24 male crowd. "serious" and "good" sci-fi never had a chance to come of age. I think that was his point. Not that Star Wars killed sci-fi but made its current "bad" niche set in stone.
woozy	post #80  on September 14, 2004 - 4:21 PM PDT   > Well, Lucas definately is not a consistent. That's for sure. > He's a crappy director. What talent he has (a matter of opinion) is as a producer. > It's been ages since I've seen the original Star Wars. I hope the extra effects doesn't screw it up. > I thought they did. They were just extra clutter and the scene with Han Solo and Jaba the Hut was utterly pointless and repetative. He just had a conversation with one bounty hunter and then he has the exact same conversation with Jaba and uses this exact same footage. This is high tech? I always thought it'd be funny to do a satire of "The Wizard of Oz: special edition" with stupid clutter in the sides of the screen and a scene of CGI flying monkeys interspersed with original footage and six extra scenes with Margaret Hamilton having the same one on one conversation with each of the characters including Frank Morgan. > Somewhat on topic (OK, not really): I saw Barry Lyndon recently. I didn't like it that much. > Oh, dare I? No, better not...

page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7      prev | next