BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Dr Kubrick

  
 
Brigade du jour
10:29 / 14.09.06
A Clockwork Orange, Dr Strangelove, Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket - watched them all again very recently (not for the first time, but for the first time in ages) and the one big thing that's really struck me about all of them is how timeless they seem. FMJ, especially, seems so topical right now, although so do most war movies with even a smidgeon of disdain for the military-industrial complex, I suppose. But it’s the irony, possibly suffused with righteous anger (haven’t made my mind up about that bit, yet) that stays with you, once you’ve got over the kind of beautiful brutality of it all.

There's such a detached, intellectual rigour about these films (yeah I know, detached intellectual rigour is kind of what Kubrick was famous for) but I wonder if my slow saturation into Barbelith has broadened my intellect enough to actually cope with that rigour better than I could before. Therefore, I’m seeking counsel from my favourite message board. What does everyone make of Kubrick’s sparsely-populated and mostly pretty controversial oeuvre?

By the way, I’ve just been looking for a thread in Film, TV & Theatre and to my surprise couldn’t find one, so maybe the consensus around here is that his work has been discussed to death. Here’s hoping we can flog something interesting out of this particular dead horse!
 
 
Henningjohnathan
16:54 / 14.09.06
I think BARRY LYNDON is often ignored for what it really accomplished. Other than the technical elements of capturing scenes by candlelight, it encapsulated both a time period and a novel without dumbing it down or sensationalizing it. Possibly Ryan Oneal's best performance.
 
 
Wanderer
17:16 / 14.09.06
Haven't seen any Kubrick in about a year, but his films stay with me more than most. Of the ones you mention, favorite is probably FMJ, because it is at the same time one of the most symbolic films about war I have seen and one of the most accurately brutal (based on the opinions of friends/coworkers who were involved in Vietnam or other wars). Clockwork is good, but I prefer the book, and Burgess' resigned anger in the newer editions over the omission of the last chapter in America (and consequently in the movie) makes me wish for the more optimistic ending.

In terms of other Kubrickian faire, I think Eyes Wide Shut is one of the better movies about the everyday deceit involved in many domestic relationships, all the quasi-occult mindfuckery aside (though I have no problem with that either). The pivotal scene for me is the bedroom scene toward the beginning, where all these assumptions of domestic fidelity and tranquility are just stripped away. I have to wonder what roles like that would do to married actors playing them (especiallygiven that Cruise and Kidman split not long after.) The Shining is one of my favorite horror films; my only minor complaint is the casting of Jack Nicholson in the lead; while he does crazy better than almost anyone, he can't really look normal enough to start with so that you really feel the breakdown of his personality. Finally, early Kubrick is great; Paths of Glory (Kirk Douglas) is another scathing indictment of war (WWI) and while it lacks the viscerality of later Kubrick, it provides a more nuanced treatment of some of the issues in FMJ.

More generally, I think there are issues with Kubrick's directing style that merit discussion. He was known for obsessively retaking shots.The bouncing ball scene in The Shining took several hundred takes; at one point Scatman Crothers (Halloran) was reduced to tears after retaking a shot upwards of 200 times. Shelley Duvall reportedly suffered a near-collapse because of the stress the shooting of the film put on her. I question whether this treatment is ethical, even if it probably works to make a more impactful, emotionally charged film. Another interesting point is that all of his scripts (to my knowledge) are adaptations; what do people think motivated this choice, and what does it say about Kubrick as director? (Im going to try and read up on him in the next few months, so if I come up with an opinion on these, I'll put it up.)
 
 
Henningjohnathan
17:33 / 14.09.06
Concerning the many takes in EYES WIDE SHUT a friend of mine (director/writer) said, half-jokingly, that the only reason a director like Kubrick does retakes is that he's not getting what he wants - and of course he's working with Tom Cruise.

I think there is a little bit of truth to that though. I think Kubrick did not want actors or stars, but he wanted the character only - he had to extinguish completely the person playing the character so that nothing else ended up on film. if that meant crushing the person with take after take, I don't think he would have hesitated.
 
 
Wanderer
17:58 / 14.09.06
Yeah, that could be one reason for it; I once read an article in which a film editor who worked with Kubrick said that he singled out the most outrageous or emotionally unstable takes. He said the general progression began with the actor(s) doing their best, hitting stride in the first few takes (the ones the film editor felt he would have chosen), went through to boredom/pacing themselves, and finally, when everyone was completely exhausted, Kubrick would have his shot. I can see the utility in this, but there's a part of me that says that if you are pushing anyone, even an actor, to the point of complete collapse, there's something wrong there.

On an unrelated note, have you seen any of the earlier Kubrick noir (Killer's Kiss, The Killing)? I ran across them one night in my university library, but haven't really heard much about them.
 
 
praricac
18:01 / 14.09.06
Eyes Wide Shut is actually my least favourite of his films.
Tom Cruise's performance didn't really convince me, the female nudity was gratuitous beyond belief and I found most of the characters to be quite cipher-like, inasmuch as they seemed to exist only to allow a given story to play out, and to allow certain themes to be explored.

The Killing (Kubrick's debut?) is worth a look. Interestingly structured and tense-as-hell wee heist thriller.

Watched A Clockwork Orange on filmfour the other night and was blown away (yet again). The script just *fizzes* and mcdowell is superb: vulnerable and utterly menacing. Up there with Tank Girl as one of his best performances (^_^)
 
 
chaated
19:23 / 14.09.06
I'm surprised that nobody has talked about 2001 yet. I prefer this in the pseudo-intellectual discussion form because I feel that while FMJ may seem more relevant currently, 2001 ASO is the film that is about bigger things that, while harder to measure or compare necessarily, are more important and more impacting with what they have to say about humanity and the direction is it taking.

Also, it is trippy and freaky and good old fashioned fun.

And it has evil robots.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
20:03 / 14.09.06
What is 2001 really about? The example of the ape-men (intelligence enhances succesful killing) at the beginning could play against the idea that the "starchild" at the end of the movie is necessarily benevolent.

Or is there an interpretation that the advances of humanity are built upon savagery, BUT these lead us toward a more peaceful and contented existence?

Arthur C. Clarke's novelized version presents a much more complete version of the story and even of the monolith and its purpose, but in many ways it seems that the film and book are drawing very different conclusions or, possibly, the film stops short of making the conclusions that the book expands upon.
 
 
Brigade du jour
13:01 / 15.09.06
(Im going to try and read up on him in the next few months, so if I come up with an opinion on these, I'll put it up.)

I heartily recommend 'The Complete Kubrick' by David Hughes for insightful film-by-film analysis. It can be quite amusing, too, never too far up its own bottom.

Interesting point raised there about the female nudity. I'll see your Eyes Wide Shut and raise you A Clockwork Orange for absolutely shitloads of (arguably) totally gratuitous female nudity. Indeed, I've always found the bit near the end where Alex's moans as he emerges from his coma are contrasted (for humorous effect, maybe? am I missing something here?) with the nurse's moans of sexual abandon as she gets it on with the doctor. Then, when they emerge from behind the curtain, I mean - how Benny Hill is that?

Ooh yes, 2001 - I really want to watch that again, it's been too long. One of my all-time favourite films, incidentally.
 
 
praricac
16:25 / 15.09.06
re the nudity - it feels less gratuitous in clockwork orange to me, seeming to serve a purpose in taking us inside alex's psyche ... although the scene with the nurse is pure benny hill.

the whole orgy sequence in eyes wide shut i found rather confusing and pointless anyway. i could have done with that whole bit being trimmed, as the film felt overlong anyway.

let's not forget that kubrick was, to put it bluntly, a dirty old man.
he just happened to be a dirty old man with prodigous cinematic talent.
 
 
ibis the being
18:03 / 15.09.06
I saw Barry Lyndon for the first time a few months ago and it was wonderful. It was relentlessly tense, wrenching, yet beautiful... that Lyndon managed to a be tragic figure despite being so utterly loathsome was impressive. Great movie, possibly my favorite Kubrick?
 
 
Henningjohnathan
19:20 / 15.09.06
What was Lyndon's reasoning in the climactic duel with his stepson? Did he really love his wife too much to kill her son?

Another example where Kubrick refuses to draw the conclusions for the audience.
 
 
PatrickMM
20:11 / 15.09.06
Kubrick, despite varying radically in subject matter from film to film, had a very clear thematic core, showing how societal systems dehumanize those within them. ACO is the most obvious treatment of this, but I think Barry Lyndon is even more powerful in depicting a character trapped within a world he hates, but can't do anything about. The most powerful moment in the film for me is his outburst to attack his son, completely breaking the social code. It's where you start o understand just how restrictive the society he lives in is.

The scene with the shootout shows Barry again putting aside societal expectations, only to wind up getting shot by someone who is unable to move out of those conventions. The film's absoultely beautiful, and despite being a three hour period piece, zips right by. BL is the only costume drama where I feel like these are real people trapped in an odd society, rather than just being odd people who aren't like me. I'm hoping that Marie Antoinette will have a similar feeling.

Anyway, if society is the source of all ills in Kubrick's films, it would stand to reason that the astronauts who are removed from society would be the ones to push humanity to the next stage of evolution, as seen in 2001. 2001 was clearly a huge influence on Morrison's work, the monolith is basically Barbelith and the starchild is like humanity in the supercontext.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
20:27 / 15.09.06
Most important in Barry Lyndon is the failure of parenthood. Throughout Kubrick's films, authority, parents and even God is completely ineffective and impotent. Barry is deprived of his father in a duel and you can see his progress as a quest for that father.

I think Barry really wants to join the upper class, and I think Kubrick is being a little intentionally ironic by portraying this as a sort of "Rake's Progress" story (down to the smug narrator) but at the same time showing how that morality tale is inherently flawed. The narrator puts all sorts of debased spins on Barry's actions, but we as the audience certainly don't see his actions as entirely immoral or self-serving. The basic concept that there is some sort of overseeing purpose to social form and function is central to these sorts of tales and I think that is really what Kubrick is tearing down in this movie.

I remember a writer talking about a story he wrote in college in which one of the characters gets away with a rape. All of his classmates didn't like it, not because of how it was written, but simply because they felt characters should be punished for bad deeds. A suggested "fix" for the story was that as soon as the character walks scott free out of the police station, he gets hit by a car and paralyzed for life.

I think Kubrick rankled at the idea that there is some sort of "divine order" that assures consequences for immoral actions. In fact, considering the time period, he may have seen that as one of the crippling illusions in society. In the film, Barry has no father, finds a surrogate in rogue, and becomes a terrible stepfather treating his stepson with all the disdain he himself received as a common orphan.

The ultimate failure, I think, is symbolized as the duel between Barry and young Lord Lyndon, his stepson, takes place in an abandoned chapel - representing the failure of the ultimate absentee father, God.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:18 / 11.09.08
So, the Shining. I watched it a few nights ago and was genuinely scared, just like I was genuinely scared by The Birds. I haven't thought of anything particularly clever to say about it yet, but I was wondering if anyone else here likes this one ...
 
 
Pyewacket The Elder
19:50 / 12.09.08
Arthur C. Clarke's novelized version presents a much more complete version of the story and even of the monolith and its purpose, but in many ways it seems that the film and book are drawing very different conclusions or, possibly, the film stops short of making the conclusions that the book expands upon.

I'm not so sure that the more complete picture is as much a result of artifice as the nature of the medium. With the written word you are dealing with a fairly 'digital' (as in it's 'this' or 'that') way of communicating and film is more analogue (in that by the nature of vision one thing is not defined from another by a space but a continuance - at best a cut).

With the book it would be pretty difficult to emulate the beautiful ambiguity of 2001 and indeed it does not do so - in and of itself it is equally mind blowing but in a different manner. I guess this is Machluan (sp?)'medium/message' stuff.

So I personally don't see any discrepancy between film and book in that the single signal split between two differing media forms expresses itself differently but i see no difference in message as such.

To whit I feel mentioning notions of some kind of 'morality' in regard to savagery leading to advancement is somewhat tainted by a modern moralistic viewpoint which is wholly inappropriate. If you take that as the message I would say that is simply a statement about your own morals and the morals of our modern culture which is not comprised of early ape hominids..

If an ape man actually did pick up a Tapir bone and smash the crap out of a another Tapir it did so because that's how the universe panned out (super intelligent monoliths notwithstanding), and that's how it survived - it wasn't oppressing the Tapir in the way modern man might consciously oppress another - it wasn't doing senseless violence for the joy of it like a football thug it was simply following an impulse that come from who-knows-where (the big bang one would logically assume). Blake's 'nature red in tooth and claw' and all that jazz but of course we are all a different kettle of fish now and should behave accordingly. Let us not expect animals to do likewise.

Anyway I've waffled on long enough about one of the greatest films ever. It is you know. It really is.
 
 
Pyewacket The Elder
19:51 / 12.09.08
P.s Jack Nicholson was fucking perfect in The Shining.
 
  
Add Your Reply