Page 1 of 1

Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:31 am UTC
by A. Akbar
I've been getting into Kubrick a lot lately, I've always liked Dr Strangelove but hadn't seen any of his others. However after a friend lent me A Clockwork Orange I've been getting through a lot in the past week. And He is amazing, Full Metal Jacket especially, one of the best war films I've ever seen. I found 2001 a disappointment though, to drawn out with little involvement demanded from the audience, did I just miss something? Does anyone have any recommendations as to what to watch next? And Is anyone else stunned by the incredible control of the scene he displays?

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:56 am UTC
by Zohar
The only problem I have with 2001 is the 20 minutes of "Look I have a budget!" at the end. Other than that it's pretty excellent, IMO.

I saw The Killing a few years ago and it wasn't bad at all. A bit silly at the end but I'll allow it, being an almost 60 years old movie. Very good crime movie.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:56 pm UTC
by charliepanayi
2001 is the sort of film that really needs to be seen at the cinema, you may still dislike it even after watching it on a cinema screen, but the main aspect of it (the stunning visuals) are blunted somewhat on a TV screen, no matter how large it is.

Watch The Shining next, one of the best horror/thriller films around.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:58 pm UTC
by Pez Dispens3r
I disagree: there's nothing worth knowing about The Shining.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:37 pm UTC
by ArgonV
Really? The only films by him I've seen and liked were Full Metal Jacket and Dr Strangelove.

Clockwork Orange was ok, I guess. Haven't seen The Shining yet.

I hated 2001: A Space Odyssey and Eyes Wide Shut though

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:48 pm UTC
by Malice
The Shining took a long time to click for me, partly because I'm a huge Stephen King fan and resented the way Kubrick essentially ripped off King's story and used it as the foundation for something fairly different. But it's still pretty brilliant as nightmare cinema--a movie which basically works purely (and powerfully) on an emotional level.

Dr. Strangelove never really hit it for me, although I only saw it once.

Eyes Wide Shut I liked. AI is awesome. The Killing is okay--it's not very Kubrick-y, although the ending is pretty sweet. A Clockwork Orange is only fun for the first 45 minutes, and after that it gets moralistic (bad) and hypocritical (worse), not to mention boring. Paths of Glory is excellent. 2001 is transcendent, pure cinema.

I'd say the best things to watch next would be The Shining and Paths of Glory.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:34 pm UTC
by Mother Superior
I didn't like Eyes Wide Shut, and I haven't seen Lolita. I love the rest of his films. Barry Lyndon might be a bit on the dull side, but it's just so pretty.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
by Izawwlgood
There's no fighting in the war room!


Seriously, best line ever.

Once a month or so I put on Thus Spake Zarathustra and just kind of go apeshit [hehe]. It's very therapeutic, and always hilarious.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:52 am UTC
by A. Akbar
Izawwlgood wrote:
Once a month or so I put on Thus Spake Zarathustra and just kind of go apeshit [hehe]. It's very therapeutic, and always hilarious.

Nietzsche?? What?

I think I'll see The Shining whenever I get the opportunity. Did he do any other political comedies in the lines of Dr Strangelove?

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:23 am UTC
by Malice
A. Akbar wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
Once a month or so I put on Thus Spake Zarathustra and just kind of go apeshit [hehe]. It's very therapeutic, and always hilarious.

Nietzsche?? What?

I think I'll see The Shining whenever I get the opportunity. Did he do any other political comedies in the lines of Dr Strangelove?


Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket, being war movies, are kind of political. But no one Kubrick film is like any other Kubrick film. They sometimes have similar themes and stylistic touches (and a sort of coldness), but they're all pretty radically different.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:15 am UTC
by 6453893
Kubrick is really a director's director. The more interest you have in film, the more you realize just how freaking awesome he is. Every scene of Clockwork Orange is just masterfully framed, lit and set, even if the story is tosh. He never edited as critically as he probably should though.

Of course, Kubrick idolized Matsumoto, which would make him a director's director's director.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:55 pm UTC
by folkhero
Paths of Glory is a great film; it's my 2nd favorite Kubrick movie (after Strangelove). It's fairly short, but it packs a big punch, and the ending scene is one of my all-time favorites. It reminds me of Catch-22 without the funny.

I wasn't a big fan of Lolita, I might have to see it again, but I was rather disappointed. I still need to see the Shining, I generally avoid horror movies, but I need to make an exception for Kubrick.

For whomever was wondering, Thus Spake Zarathustra is not just a book by Nietzsche, but also the famous song at the beginning of 2001:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWnmCu3U09w

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:42 am UTC
by porcupine
I've only seen The Shining and 2001: A Space Odyssey, but so far he is easily one of my favorite directors. I don't know why so many people don't like Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite, for me it is usually the reason I put it on.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:50 am UTC
by Hurt
Always been a big fan of Kubrick, even when i was way younger, although i didn't really understand the visual aspect.
Dr. Strangelove is one of my alltime favorite film, always makes me laugh.
2001 was a wierd experience, mostly because i didn't really take the time to enjoy every single scene.
Full Metal Jacket was great aswell, i thought it seperated itself from alot of his other movies in the dialogue, it was very cocky in a way, but i guess it was part of the theme.

A Clockwork Orange was great when i saw it, great visualisation of a dystopian society. Then i read the book, and i really think that Kubrick skipped the point that Anthony Burgess was trying to bring out with the last part. He didn't have any of it in the film. :?

Jack Nicholson in The Shinning was beyond epic, and the scene with the bike riding around in the halls. Magnificent.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:31 pm UTC
by Mother Superior
Hurt wrote:Then i read the book, and i really think that Kubrick skipped the point that Anthony Burgess was trying to bring out with the last part. He didn't have any of it in the film. :?

That's true. He read the ending and thought it was rubbish. I agree. Kubrick's way is better.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:34 pm UTC
by jaap
Mother Superior wrote:
Hurt wrote:Then i read the book, and i really think that Kubrick skipped the point that Anthony Burgess was trying to bring out with the last part. He didn't have any of it in the film. :?

That's true. He read the ending and thought it was rubbish. I agree. Kubrick's way is better.


Also, isn't it the case that the first American edition of the book didn't have that last chapter anyway?

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:49 pm UTC
by Dream
Mother Superior wrote:Barry Lyndon might be a bit on the dull side, but it's just so pretty.

If we ever meet, I must fight you over this point before we can be friends.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:07 pm UTC
by Mother Superior
Dream wrote:
Mother Superior wrote:Barry Lyndon might be a bit on the dull side, but it's just so pretty.

If we ever meet, I must fight you over this point before we can be friends.

Pistols at dawn then?

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:48 am UTC
by 6453893
jaap wrote:
Mother Superior wrote:
Hurt wrote:Then i read the book, and i really think that Kubrick skipped the point that Anthony Burgess was trying to bring out with the last part. He didn't have any of it in the film. :?

That's true. He read the ending and thought it was rubbish. I agree. Kubrick's way is better.


Also, isn't it the case that the first American edition of the book didn't have that last chapter anyway?
That's the version Kubrick based his adaptation on, actually. He didn't even hear about the 21st chapter until shooting was almost done.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:27 am UTC
by Dream
Mother Superior wrote:
Dream wrote:
Mother Superior wrote:Barry Lyndon might be a bit on the dull side, but it's just so pretty.

If we ever meet, I must fight you over this point before we can be friends.

Pistols at dawn then?

OK. But they have to be actually loaded.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:06 pm UTC
by lu6cifer
2001 was better after I read the book

Dr. Strangelove was probably my favorite film by him, followed by A Clockwork Orange and then Full Metal Jacket. I thought the Shining was okay...Jack Nicholson was good, but the woman who played Wendy was just unbearable...she was just so whiny and annoying.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:29 am UTC
by porcupine
I just seen Dr. Strangelove the other day and have to say that it is probably the second funniest film I've seen. It comes in second after Monty Python's Holy Grail.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:33 am UTC
by charliepanayi
lu6cifer wrote:2001 was better after I read the book

Dr. Strangelove was probably my favorite film by him, followed by A Clockwork Orange and then Full Metal Jacket. I thought the Shining was okay...Jack Nicholson was good, but the woman who played Wendy was just unbearable...she was just so whiny and annoying.


I always thought that was exactly the point about her character. Mind you I have read that the character is a lot more passive than she is in the novel. I don't know if that was Kubrick's choice or the way Shelley Duvall decided to do it.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:57 am UTC
by Pez Dispens3r
This from TVtropes.org, if it helps shed any light:
When filming his adaptation of Stephen King's The Shining, Stanley Kubrick verbally abused Shelley Duvall and notoriously made her do 127 takes of a single scene in order to render her performance as Jack Torrance's meek and increasingly terrified and hysterical wife Wendy more compelling.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:34 pm UTC
by missbittens
Poor thing. Kubrick's a great director IMO, but if that's any indication, he's also a huge dick. Enforced method acting can go too far.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:36 pm UTC
by Mother Superior
Oh yes, fantastic director, but often a pain-in-the-ass. Though, from what I've heard, many people enjoyed working with him, he was just a perfectionist control freak, so so long as you didn't mind that, no problem.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:31 am UTC
by folkhero
missbittens wrote:Poor thing. Kubrick's a great director IMO, but if that's any indication, he's also a huge dick. Enforced method acting can go too far.

Supposedly in Strangelove, George C. Scott thought that his character should be more dry and subtle than what Kubrick wanted. Kubrick pretended to go along, but had him do a few takes of the overacted version of General Turgidson along with the dozens of takes of the dry Turgidson. He promised that he wouldn't use these takes, and they were just to help Scott get in character. Of course when editing time came, Kubrick used the overacted take for every single scene to great effect. I also heard that the actors in the bomber only got the part of the script that was set in the airplane without anyone informing them it was a comedy. (According to Wikipedia, Slim Pickens was told that it was a black comedy, without showing him the rest of the script, but that he should play it straight.)

In short: Kubrick = evil genius

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:07 pm UTC
by Philwelch
porcupine wrote:I just seen Dr. Strangelove the other day and have to say that it is probably the second funniest film I've seen. It comes in second after Monty Python's Holy Grail.


That's...that's the most insulting compliment I've ever read.

folkhero wrote:Supposedly in Strangelove, George C. Scott thought that his character should be more dry and subtle than what Kubrick wanted. Kubrick pretended to go along, but had him do a few takes of the overacted version of General Turgidson along with the dozens of takes of the dry Turgidson. He promised that he wouldn't use these takes, and they were just to help Scott get in character. Of course when editing time came, Kubrick used the overacted take for every single scene to great effect.


Scott was extremely competitive, so Kubrick frequently challenged him to chess matches in order to win these arguments. Whoever won the chess match won the argument.

Kubrick always won at chess.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 1:36 pm UTC
by Flumble
Nothing says "I want to show my appreciation for A Clockwork Orange now that I've seen it" like dragging a 7-year-old topic out of the mud.

From what little I knew about the film, I thought it was going to be a 2-hour ride of revolting "ultra-violence", but it turned out to be so much more.
Spoiler:
I like the way the film presents pros and cons of the rehabilitation programme, with the chaplain arguing that he has no free will over his actions and the doctor arguing that he's been correctly conditioned. And the politicians backing the doctor for political benefits, and the writer backing the other side for his political benefits (and after recognizing him, for his own vengeance).

I didn't really understand his relation with his parents/home. When he visited his parents, he seemed to care a lot more about his home than was shown in the first scenes (i.e. not at all). Perhaps it's because he didn't look like a 15yo going through puberty in the film.

Also the scenes after getting kicked out of the house were really well done. While part of me thought Alex' former self (and in a way his current self too, since he didn't lose his abusive nature, only gained revulsion) really deserved all the shit he got from the people he had been abusing before, the other part of me screamed that those people were no better than Alex (especially not since Alex is pictured a proper sociopath).
Even the ending left me bitter, because the minister and the music acted like it was all good, but it really wasn't: two of the 'droogs' are policemen, the minister is using Alex for his own good and it's not clear whether Alex is successfully treated now or simply back to his old sociopathic self. Oh well, at least the old beggars didn't get their full revenge and the writer got served for his vengeance (rightly so, but for the wrong reasons).

I also liked how Kubrick subverts my expectations (either on purpose or I'm too used to Chekov's guns). For example, when the interviewers turned out to be a.o. the singing woman from the cafe, I immediately thought she was going to sing Ode to Joy... although, thinking about it, that wouldn't have resulted in anything since Alex is only abhorred by the 9th symphony.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:14 pm UTC
by Znirk
Flumble wrote:
Spoiler:
I immediately thought she was going to sing Ode to Joy... although, thinking about it, that wouldn't have resulted in anything since Alex is only abhorred by the 9th symphony.

... um ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._9_(Beethoven)#Fourth_movement

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:07 pm UTC
by Flumble
Oh... Ehhh... Ooooooohhh! :oops:

I stand corrected. Discard the "thinking about it" part.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:41 pm UTC
by pogrmman
Bringing this old thread back up, I just got back from seeing 2001 on the big screen. An imax screen, that is. It was a special re-release for the film’s 50th anniversary.

While I’ve seen it loads of times before, it’s really something special on the big screen.

I really enjoy so many things about it — the composition of the shots, the minimal dialogue, the score. But seeing and hearing it all in such a massive way was really, really cool.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:12 am UTC
by commodorejohn
I really should get around to revisiting 2001 at some point - I mostly just remember being miffed at the fact that Arthur C. Clarke's version was headtrippy but comprehensible, while Kubrick's version was almost David Lynch levels of resolutely baffling at the end.

Still, if the man had given us nothing other than Dr. Strangelove, his legacy would still be secure.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:03 pm UTC
by Zohar
commodorejohn wrote:Arthur C. Clarke's version was headtrippy but comprehensible, while Kubrick's version was almost David Lynch levels of resolutely baffling at the end.

What do you mean? They both worked together on the script, as far as I recall.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:31 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
Zohar wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:Arthur C. Clarke's version was headtrippy but comprehensible, while Kubrick's version was almost David Lynch levels of resolutely baffling at the end.

What do you mean? They both worked together on the script, as far as I recall.


Novels have to explain the visuals rather than being free to just display them, as movies can. Simply choosing how to describe what's being shown explains more of the intended message than the video itself does.

Also, while both collaborated on the story, the book was done before the movie was finalised, so, not only are there differences in emphasis and explanation, but there are also outright contradictions - for example, in the book, the final monolith is near Saturn, reached following a slingshot around Jupiter; in the movie, it orbits Jupiter itself.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:34 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
That was (apparently, if not itself an urban legend) because the effects team didn't think they could mock up Saturn's rings properly (or not to Kubrick's satisfaction, anyway).

Though with it being easier to make a Jovian-based star than a Cronian one (FCVO 'easy') it make 2010 easier to justify by both celluloid and dead-tree formats of the story following the revisionary version of 2K1.


(I very nearly interjected earlier to tell the Kubrick's Rube joke, which I was coincidentally reminded of just a couple of weeks ago, but I can never quite get the rather complex setup straight so I'll leave with just its punchline.)

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:01 am UTC
by commodorejohn
Zohar wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:Arthur C. Clarke's version was headtrippy but comprehensible, while Kubrick's version was almost David Lynch levels of resolutely baffling at the end.

What do you mean? They both worked together on the script, as far as I recall.

They did - but that only means that they both understood what was happening in the story. Whether they (in their separate renditions) were interested in or succeeded in effectively communicating that to the audience is another matter.

Re: Stanley Kubrick: Because He is Awesome

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:05 am UTC
by serutan
Soupspoon wrote:That was (apparently, if not itself an urban legend) because the effects team didn't think they could mock up Saturn's rings properly (or not to Kubrick's satisfaction, anyway).


If memory serves, Clarke himself said that. He called the overall experience "a stimulating, if expensive way
to write a book".

I read the book before I saw the movie, which made me think that a lot of the move might not make
much sense by itself.

Also, the part about the actors on the bomber crew not being told about any of the rest of the plot makes sense as they seemed to be the only ones playing it straight.