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?
Eoliano	post #21  on November 26, 2003 - 8:47 AM PST   >>I hear he lit a whole scene with just one candle.... If memory serves, I believe he used natural light throughout Barry Lyndon.
Eoliano	post #22  on November 26, 2003 - 10:09 AM PST   Exactly hamano, what we're getting into here may simply be a matter of individual taste, or perhaps it's cultural or generational, I don't know. Although he wasn't a prolific director, Kubrick was a master, and with few exceptions, he was his own master in the studio. Whether one gets a film the first time around seems moot to me. Some films may be more difficult than others, while others are as plain as day. However, the enjoyment factor combined with an interest in content or even technique might be enough to see a film a second or third time, while others remain in one's personal pantheon of great films that can stand up to infinite viewings. Speaking of repeated viewings regarding Kubrick versus the Coens, I think that it runs both ways for me and can readily pick a couple of films by Kubrick and the Coens that I have little or no interest in seeing again.
thejasonholland	post #23  on November 26, 2003 - 11:59 AM PST   Perhaps it is harsh to use words like right and wrong. But, there is an overwhelming frustration in the fact that most audiences take for granted a director like Kubrick or Tarantino, who instead of spoon-feeding formulaic movies to audiences, offers something different which could have multiple interpretations. Its always been the point of art to show expression and in turn hope it makes others understand that expression. Often it takes a longer look than just the initial two hours. I have a brother who is just about the opposite of me. He likes his movies nice and simple. And while I too enjoy Adam Sandler movies, I know what I'm getting out of them. It bothers me that he won't try and take on a Kubrick movie, already full of preconceptions and scoff. He could watch and not like it and that would be fine. As long I could see that he at least made noble effort. The music in 2001 was revolutionary. Its use was a reinterpretation in itself. Turning well-known classics into the score of cosmic "ballet" of men and machines. It wasn't just sticking in a few bars of Beethoven in a period piece. It was using old music for newer expressions. That Kubrick Site forementioned is a great guide through many of the interpetations his films have aquired over the years and just goes to show what the point seems to be of this discussion, that Kubrick, underrated or overrated, did what any artist sets out to do- take it or leave it. No one's twisting anyone's arm over liking the guy. If you're interested it is an exciting world of active movie-watching.
hamano	post #24  on November 26, 2003 - 1:17 PM PST   > On November 26, 2003 - 11:59 AM PST thejasonholland wrote: > --------------------------------- > Perhaps it is harsh to use words like right and wrong. But, there is an overwhelming frustration in the fact that most audiences take for granted a director like Kubrick or Tarantino, who instead of spoon-feeding formulaic movies to audiences, offers something different which could have multiple interpretations. I agree with Kubrick's historical and artistic importance as laid out here in these posts (although I'm pretty sure Kubrick's spoonfeeding me something, and it ain't necessarily sweet!) (And don't get me started on Quentin "Kill Bill" Tarantion if you're gonna argue non-formulaic. Go see Shohei Imamura's The Eel instead!) But what's the point of forcing Kubrick on your poor brother if he doesn't like Kubrick? You could try turning him on to Bergman or Eisenstein or Fellini, and he could have a VERY RICH cinematic life without ever seeing a frame of Kubrick. If he likes Adam Sandler, get him Punch Drunk Love! I have a sister, and last year I gave her a copy of Amelie, and she loved it, just as I thought. She never sees European films, on her own, but now she's seen at least one good French film! Will I ever shower her with Kubrick films, saying, "I know he objectifies and tortures and terrorizes his female characters, but Kubrick is REALLY IMPORTANT so get over it!"??? I don't think so. I think it's enought that I watch Kubrick films and benefit from the experience. Kubrick is not the ONLY great film artist. One could argue that he was good at building a sort of mystique around his considerable talents as a filmmaker, so that now sometimes he seems like he's the ONLY great director. He's a really BAD choice if you wanna turn someone else on to cinema, because it's very easy to find SOMETHING about every one of his films to dislike. It's certainly not worth sowing discord in your family... But if it's really that important to you, for your artistic soul or whatever, that your brother take a look at a Kubrick film, to get to know you better, maybe, then I'm sure that if you explain it exactly that way, he'd watch Full Metal Jacket with you. You're his brother after all. Me, I think it's a pity to let a matter of taste sabotage real, existing human relationships. It's easy enough for me to think about the other person and figure out a good film that I think that person would like. Maybe I'll get American Beauty for my sister next...
thejasonholland	post #25  on November 26, 2003 - 3:08 PM PST   "I would not think of quarreling with your interpretation nor offering any other, as I have found it always the best policy to allow the film to speak for itself." -- Stanley Kubrick
hamano	post #26  on November 26, 2003 - 3:35 PM PST   Exactly!
Eoliano	post #27  on November 26, 2003 - 5:36 PM PST   > Exactly! Ditto! >And don't get me started on Quentin "Kill Bill" ...Go see Shohei Imamura's The Eel instead! hamano, I'm with you on that one also!
kamapuaa	post #28  on November 26, 2003 - 7:25 PM PST   And yet, I disagree! What fun is a message board if you just let movies stand for themselves? Besides, what else would I talk about, if art isn't a valid topic - the weather? People's personas can boil down to that they like, and why they like it - it's shallow but true! I think that's why people try to force movies on their families, or take strong opinions on some movie they saw 5 years ago.
larbeck	post #29  on November 26, 2003 - 8:42 PM PST   > On November 25, 2003 - 11:32 PM PST kamapuaa wrote: > --------------------------------- > I don't think they're given to film (although "I, Robot" with Will Smith comes out next year). Will Smith! AGH! Was the lead character, the robo-psychologist suppose to be a woman? The only worst than Will Smith might be Brenden Fraser!
Eoliano	post #30  on November 27, 2003 - 10:50 AM PST   >I think that's why people try to force movies on their families... We would never consider force feeding movies on anyone!
kamapuaa	post #31  on November 27, 2003 - 11:23 AM PST   > Will Smith! AGH! Was the lead character, the robo-psychologist suppose to be a woman? The only worst than Will Smith might be Brenden Fraser! 10 worst choices to play the robo-psychologist in "I, Robot" 10. Carrot Top. 9. Spuds McKenzie. 8. Animatronic Abraham Lincoln from Disneyland's Hall of Presidents. 7. Animatronic corpse of Katherine Hepburn. 6. Wil Wheaton. 5. Britney Spears. 4. Jar Jar Binks. 3. Jenna Jameson. 2. Mr T. and the number 1 worst... 1. Robin Williams.
hamano	post #32  on December 2, 2003 - 9:04 PM PST   > On November 27, 2003 - 10:50 AM PST Eoliano wrote: > --------------------------------- > We would never consider force feeding movies on anyone! > --------------------------------- You and who else? ^_^
Eoliano	post #33  on December 21, 2003 - 8:24 AM PST   > You and who else? Not me! Never! Maybe you're confusing appreciation with forced nurturing, though sometimes it's a useful way to stay alive and kicking.
kodack	post #34  on April 16, 2004 - 4:39 PM PDT   Describe Stanley Kubrick? I'll sum him up. He followed his own vision unflinchingly. That about sums up his greatness. > On November 23, 2003 - 2:00 PM PST kamapuaa wrote: > --------------------------------- > I've been enjoying the best-of-every-year lists being put out by JEdwards. However, I noticed he put the much-loved "2001" at the top of the 1968 list (ahead of my favorite zombie movie, even!) I don't understand this, or the general regard for Kubrick. > > "2001" to me seemed dated, only possible to enjoy in a historical context. The opening scene was just embarassing. Nothing happens and not very quickly, the mixture of sci-fi and classical music is somewhere between pretentious and corny. Its vision of space is firmly rooted in 60's aspirations, which through no fault of Clarke or Kubrick, have now been passed by. The computer was a great idea for a villian, although in practice there isn't much dramatic tension. The view of space & science as humanity's saviour is silly. > > And so on, with the other movies of his I've seen. They're often slow, the characters don't seem at all genuine, they're far too pretentious, and there just isn't much there to be grab hold of. My favorite would be "Dr. Strangelove," which I think is childish in its obviousness, but Peter Sellers is really funny. > > Anybody care to explain Kubrick? I regard him as an Emporer wearing no clothes, but I'm interested to hear an explanation about why he's so great - usually I just hear an assumption that it's a known fact. > ---------------------------------
kamapuaa	post #35  on April 17, 2004 - 12:12 AM PDT   > Describe Stanley Kubrick? I'll sum him up. He followed his own vision unflinchingly. That's a little vague. Don't other directors do the same thing?
jwebb202	post #36  on May 12, 2004 - 11:57 AM PDT   i think kubrick is the greatest filmmaker ever no one else used film like he did...ever film [even the bad ones] have so much to offer & does something special he mastered so many areas of cinema... killing = one of the greatest film noir dr stranglove = one of greatest comedies 2001 = greatest scifi shinning = one of greatest horror then theres the war films = paths of glory/barry london/full metal jacket & then theres a clockwork orange masterpiece after masterpiece 2001 is his ultimate masterpiece
Eoliano	post #37  on May 31, 2004 - 6:46 PM PDT   > i think kubrick is the greatest filmmaker ever and perhaps the world's biggest pack rat ever...
sinisterguffaw	post #38  on June 1, 2004 - 4:31 PM PDT   Eoliano, you've done it again! Is that article available from a source that isn't the new york times where you have to register and have a subscription to read it?
Eoliano	post #39  on June 1, 2004 - 5:11 PM PDT   > Eoliano, you've done it again! Is that article available from a source that isn't the new york times where you have to register and have a subscription to read it? Not that I'm aware. It's not necessary to subscribe to the print edition. Registration to NYTimes.com is free and only takes a minute of your time.
sinisterguffaw	post #40  on June 2, 2004 - 9:32 AM PDT   Oh. Okay then.

page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7      prev | next