›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Stanley KubrickI

GeoGeo
edited May 2008 in Everything Else
Inspired by my Space Odyssey related thing of the day, I decided to make a thread about Stanley Kubrick. What is your opinion about Stanley Kubrick? My opinion is the following statement.

Kubrick was without a doubt a master filmmaker and a member of a dying breed: filmmakers who incorporate semiotics in their films. Many of his films heavily rely on this technique such as Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, etc. I think it is universal among everyone who has first watched a Kubrick film to not get it at all because these movies are not casual or light material in the slightest. Many of these movies have so much depth in themselves that you'll wonder if an alien made them, because Kubrick's movies have not and most likely will not be surpassed in this regard. You can try to plausibly explain these movies, but you'll most likely fail in attempting to do so. That is my opinion on Mr. Kubrick in his work. May you RIP.

Comments

  • SailSail
    I have a friend who loves him. He owns the box set with all of his movies.
  • whateverwhatever
    He's never made the same film twice. I would have never thought that the same man made Lolita or Spartacus after having seen 2001. Everyone owes it to themselves to see all of his films, failing that, at least A Clockwork Orange, 2001, and Dr. Strangelove.
  • dutopiadutopia
    I've never watched all of 2001, but it's playing a late show in a theater down the road from me tonight - nice little coincidence there. Might have to check it out :)
  • TechparadoxTechparadox
    I've never watched all of 2001, but it's playing a late show in a theater down the road from me tonight - nice little coincidence there. Might have to check it out :)
    I've always thought 2001 was a great piece of cinema but I was damn glad I had read the book before I saw it. I would have been 100% lost at the beginning and end of it had I not known the relevant plot points behind what was going on.
  • whateverwhatever
    edited May 2008
    I've always thought 2001 was a great piece of cinema but I was damn glad I had read the book before I saw it. I would have been 100% lost at the beginning and end of it had I not known the relevant plot points behind what was going on.
    The point of 2001, or what I got out of it, at least, was to show how miniscule we are and how epic and vast everything around us is. The story is told on such a large and complex scale that, after seeing it just once, you are bound to not understand all of it.
    Post edited by whatever on
  • TechparadoxTechparadox
    edited May 2008
    The point of 2001, or what I got out of it, at least, was to show how miniscule we are and how epic and vast everything around us is.The story is told on such an large and complex scale that, after seeing it just once, you are bound to not understand all of it.
    While you have a valid point there, I read the book well in advance of seeing the movie. I fully understood what was going down in the scenes with the evolutionary spikes of the apes and the transformation of Bowman into the Star Child without the need for any external narration. I was fortunate in that respect; the original viewers of the film back in '68 didn't really have that luxury as the book was not published prior to the release of the movie. I get the feeling that more than one viewer back in '68 would have walked out of the theater at the end of the flick with a "huh?" look on their face. All artistic points aside, that's not good storytelling. It's one thing to design a film to make people think, but it's another thing entirely to make a film that is hard for the average viewer to interpret. Heck, Kubrick was deliberately evasive about the meaning of the film and Clarke himself stated that if anyone understood it on the first viewing they had failed their intention.

    To sum up: In my opinion the book was intellectually stimulating and extremely satisfying, the movie was vague at the beginning and the end and and hard to follow during those sections. The book stands well on its own without the movie, but I would have left the movie well behind me a long time ago if it hadn't been for the book.
    Post edited by Techparadox on
  • GeoGeo
    Let's talk about Full Metal Jacket, It's probably my 2nd favorite Kubrick film next to 2001. I think the performances in it are fantastic (especially the drill sergeant) and the ending is something special.
  • blaman327blaman327
    I love Kubrick and I honestly consider 2001 one of the three greatest movies ever (along with It's a Wonderful Life and Die Hard). I also absolutely love The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut. Actually the only film of his that I don't love is Killer's Kiss, which is his 2nd film and the earliest of his that is available to see. Even that though has a really strong visual style and is better than most films.
  • GeoGeo
    ove Kubrick and I honestly consider 2001 one of the three greatest movies ever (along with It's a Wonderful Life and Die Hard). I also absolutely love The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut. Actually the only film of his that I don't love is Killer's Kiss, which is his 2nd film and the earliest of his that is av
    I didn't think EWS wasn't that great, his legacy didn't end with a bang as it should have. It ended with a whimper.
Sign In or Register to comment.