i would have to agree with that. most people who seriously consider themselves cinephiles worship him. and its mostly the pretentious ones.
One of the big reasons I love that first part is primarily due to it being a great example of how to break a man down. I see a commercial for some branch of the military before almost every movie I go see in the theatre, and not one of them ever show the part in which a drill Sergent will break a person down mentally, and then mold them until they will follow any order. I love the depiction of Gomer Pile, and how the commonly accepted practices of military training are shown in their true psychologically disturbing light. There is a lot going on in those first 40 minutes, so much so that you actually just made me want to go watch that film again.
As far as Kieslowski, I’ve only ever seen pieces of the Decalogue, and I loved it. I’ve been meaning to buy it on DVD, but it’s quite expensive. I’m in the process of getting Netflix, at which point I plan to go through his catalog, in addition to my plan of viewing every Hitchcock film available.
@ Law, I agree 100% that our moods influence our receptiveness to things like film (and music, art, etc). Even the sense of discovery can influence our judgement. But the thing is, everyone has these same moods, bar none. That doesn’t mean we’re all biased, rather we’re all the same. A perfect reason to judge a film without taking it’s target audience too seriously.
@Jesse, good point. Worship can be destructive to our own creativity, but I think it comes as a result of emotional gratitude.
If someone makes a film that effectively moves an audience emotionally or intellectually, then they’ve done their job, and the resulting worship is a (sometimes excessive) symbol of this gratitude. Whether we admit it or not, we all want praise for our hard work.
Of course opinions are biased in the sense that they are build from our subjectivity. That’s un obvious statement. Yet the opinions can be shared and the serious cinema discussion is possible thanks to the dialogue between subjects and subjectivities and the sharing of feelings and impressions. The point is that how on earth I can put other person in my shoes when I say: "Ok… I dislike that movie… the reason you know is that I met this philistine guy who like it ". Apart from being a really idiotic reason it is far from being “shareable” since only matters to ME! Then it’s of little value in discussing films with others. That’s the point as I understand it.
@LAW
Know anywhere I can get a good copy of TOUTE UNE NUIT?
“One of the big reasons I love that first part is primarily due to it being a great example of how to break a man down.”
And then the second portion of the movie demands we ask, “what was it all for?” since basically every aspect of the territory under attack is completely different from the controlled test situation in which the soldiers are broken down. Of course no one’s comfortable with that second segment of the movie. Kubrick plans on having us be utterly unprepared.
Kubrick was a great filmmaker. That’s all that matters to me. All this cock measuring over who knows more about cinema, who has more elite tastes, who thinks they know more…all that’s for the birds. I don’t understand why some people feel the need to truly put their opinion out on the front line and insist people be aware of it. All this shit talking and looking down on people about what they like. It’s silliness. To me, being pretentious or elitist, or snobby about movie tastes is one of the most unattractive behavior types out there. Just…like what you like and not worry about all the faux know-it-all pricks out there.
Stanley Kubrick was a great film maker. He was bold and intense and his films show this. His last films are some of the most recognizable, copied, referenced, and influential films the general audience knows. To truly build a bridge between the hardcore film fanbase and the general audience is a tough thing to do and he achieved this time and time again.
But that’s just what I think.
Wait, Doinel, I’m not clear on how you feel about Kubrick.
Doinel’s being coy…
I find I disagree pretty much with the OP, because:
>>Kubrick suffers from being one of the first major directors high school kids discover when they’re ready to graduate from Michael Bay, and the resulting fanboy effect.<<
I really doubt that anyone graduates from Michael Bay to Kubrick … they may stumble upon him by accident but I suspect that anyone who’s been a fan of TRANSFORMERS2 (For instance) is even going to make it to the end of BARRY LYNDON (for instance).
>>He’s judged in part by his status among the average movie-going public as a film god.<<
Again, I may be wrong but I think Kubrick’s status among the average movie-going public is “Stanley who?”
Now Kubrick’s status among film gee— er, cineastes may be that he’s a god, but it’s by no means absolute.
comparing the methods of wiseman and kubrick doesnt help us assess either properly. one makes docs, the other fiction. im sure “metal jacket” and “basic training” do things that the other cant, and both also lack things the other can supply.
@ Doinel I don’t get it with Kubrick. To me his films have no depth whatsoever.
Will you call Kubrick a dilettante ?
@Doinel – Do you enjoy Dr. Strangelove?
To get back to the OP. I do agree that there’s an observable fanboy effect surrounding his work, but that’s about it. From “Kubrick suffers…” onward, I disagree, because I agree with all those on the thread who’ve noted that it does not actually lessen the quality of the films themselves, nor do I even think it effects the due praise that Kubrick receives from a wide variety of those who admire him outside fanboy-dom. Back in high school, I got the impression that the majority of my peers dug Kubrick only so far as he was (to quote FMJ), “Hardcore, man. Hard. Core.” And that attitude certainly turned me off to taking Kubrick seriously for a while, but, again, even if my personal stance on him was retarded by this attitude, it was only temporary, and I wouldn’t say anyone “suffers” ultimately from such cases. I now count THE SHINING (U.S. cut) among basically perfect films, and, if this makes sense, EYES WIDE SHUT as even better if much more imperfect.
@Doinel. Great point that Wiseman’s films provide amazing cinematic counterpoints for tons of movies, I think due to their fascinatingly personal and immediate take on broad, universal, generic civic institutions. I haven’t seen BASIC TRAINING, but LAW AND ORDER alone made me think a ton about FULL METAL JACKET and global policing.
@Miasma - Kubrick is one of those directors like Fellini who, I believe, jumped the shark when he went to color.
Doinel….dear god….
@Doinel – I see what you mean, but [at this point in my life] I’m more interested in their shark-jumped material… the products of their age, wisdom, expertise, perhaps mastery… for better or worse! I have my reasons. I won’t try to deny that Eyes Wide Shut really leaves one wanting more. Still, since its Stan, I find that I cannot get enough.
Most of Kurosawa’s color work came after the poor guy’s suicide attempt… perhaps that has something to do with it. Frankly I found Ran and Kagemusha exponentially more nuanced than his former work. Course, then there’s Dreams, which is something less than a sober, solid work…
I suppose this all comes down to youth’s spark, vigor, restlessness, and all those revelations and things to say, express, discover… yada yada. One day we’ll be old as hell and tired of that jazz, and I try to do my considering sans the bias of youth’s libido. Striving for objectivity…? Maybe I’m insane.
PS – The Shining? You don’t even enjoy The Shining??
Doinel….dear god….
too much sugar intake…
@Robley…I feel about Kurosawa they way you feel about VERTIGO. So it goes, and time will tell if that changes.
@Doinel
I agree with you for the most part. Kubrick had some good aspects when he was working in black and white- The Killing, etc (although there are many noirs that are a million times better)…somehow his autistic quality of filmmaking became more of a problem when he moved to color.
Also agree that Kurosawa was much better off when he was doing black and white- and Fellini? I think Juliet of the Spirits works pretty well as a color film from him.
I don’t care about Fellini enough to mount an emotional argument, but my two favorites of his are both color – Toby Dammit and Satyricon.
I think watching Kubrick’s color films compared to his B&W films is like watching a different director….A director who is ridiculously better.
Very snobbish opinioin… Because you aren’t a real film enthusiast if you don’t know and love such directors as Godard, Cocteau and Żuławski. The opinion is way too elitist and Tarkovsky is surely also too mainstream. Hithcock must be something like Disney.
Hitchcock*
You should put who you’re responding to.
Wtf Doinel! That’s the most stupid thing i’ve ever heard! 2001 and Clockwork is just trite? You can say much about them, but they sure are depth. They’re both founded on nietzschean philosophy – we got references to Feuerbach and Spinoza too. 2001 is an allegory over the creation of the übermensch, Clockwork Orange is about the dionysian spirit in the apollonian state. You can say it’s wrong, but it’s deep and tries to be so.
rob are u saying his b and w films are better or color
if its the first I very much agree with u
if its the second I worry about you
I’m just answearing the premise of the debate – the opinion on Kubrick.
DEN, you think Kubricks B/W movies is better than his color works?
Drew Gregory
Doktor, I guess that was a bad example, because there is nothing wrong with liking only the first part. Its more when someone likes the first part because of the funny insults and cool scene where the fat guy kills himself (and you can like it for these reasons, but in my opinion there is a lot more to that section).
Great comparison to Freud. I fully agree with you.
Kieslowski is so incredible. I just got the Kino box set so I’m excited to finally see some more of his lesser known work. What are your favorite Kieslowski films?