the ability to switch genres with each film and make a powerful work in all of them.
My favorite part about him as a director is that he’s a cameraman first. His background as a photographer made him very knowledgeable and allowed him to not rely on a DP and know exactly how to shoot exactly what he wanted. In the documentary, A Life in Pictures, I recall a story of him ripping apart a cameraman who had moved his set up on a scene (I think in The Killing) because it made for an easier camera move. He was told that they could keep the tracking shot 1/2 the distance from the actor because they doubled the lens… and this was so not the case because it’s a different shot. “Put the fucking camera where I told you to do it.” After that, he didn’t get any confrontation or disagreement on the set.
There’s also the scene with Sidney Pollack in Eyes Wide Shut, (also explained by Tom Cruise in the documentary) which was Pollack’s first look at Stanley’s infamous use of endless take after take. “But don’t you want to get it right??” God, I love that man.
His attention to detail – everything looks right in all his films – every single scene. Notice the instrument panels and the code books on the B-52 in Dr. Strangelove or the instrument panels on anything in 2001, for example. Everything always has that right look to it, no matter if it is in the past or the future. Who else could make such a perfect monolith or film the opening scenes in the wild so beautifully in 2001 as Kubrick? He had the best eye in cinema – and those little details he always takes the time to get right add up to films of great creative vision. His movies never cease to astonish me because of their great look. He must have been a perfectionist to the nth.
Also, his choice of music is always right – who can ever forget the association of Thus Spake Zarathustra with the closing of 2001 or the use of Bartok at the beginning of The Shining? Again, his choices are just right to set the atmosphere he wants.
Of COURSE his details…. take another look at his final film. We know we’re in New York, however there are no recognizable street signs or any locations specific to the real New York. There are several shots with a wall poster that has the same lower corner peeling up off the wall. And the masquerade climax when Tom Cruise is asked the password… take notice at the main girl’s pubic hair; it changes shot to shot showing you that it’s an entirely different girl. This was no goof. All of these inaccuracies are part of the on-going theme of you watching a dream-like movie. This is all happening right in front of you and you can’t even see them, because you’re eyes are wide shut.
Stan the man!
Thank you Fletch for pointing out the pubic hair differences – I will go check out my DVD of Wide Shut soon to see this for myself, looking very carefully, as suits a movie by our Stan (or Stanley to Mr. Laurel).
haha! i think that’s the first analytical thought i’ve heard that centers around pubic hair. (but i can’t say i’m mad at it!)
this is the first time i’ve heard stanley’s genius being compared equally with pubic hair and not being compromised in any way ! haha.. keep it going guys!
Considering that Kubrick was a complete perfectionist, do you think there’s anyone today who compares with him?
Excellent new question!
But going back to the pubic hair… http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-02-25/books/dream-lovers/ – it seems that others have noticed and the novella it’s based on was called Dream Story. Wonderful!
I have plenty of examples of auteurs listed on this site that have so much control, none I believe equal Kubrick’s perfectionism, but I have to do some more looking into current auteurs’ entire collections. I love Martin Scorsese and know of many stories of how well he directed a scene or shot, but not entire films that were so involved and calculated as Kubrick’s (he even was calculating when not shooting, playing chess on set with anyone that knew how).
Someone who many argue is overrated, like Wes Anderson, may be fantastic, but doesn’t yet have a lengthy career to look back on and do enough comparison. I would take another look at Malick’s films… anyone who makes so few so far apart, basically. But I, too, would like to know of any CURRENT ones to study whose next film I can anticipate, rather than look at a filmmaker’s entire filmography as a retrospective after I already know he or she is fantastic.
Basically, I think after following the post above me, I could’ve just said “Ditto”.
Re Sai’s above question:
I would say that Spielberg is the only living director I know who approaches the craft of film with anything like the perfectionist eye of Kubrick. His movies, at their best, have a wonderful attention to detail, too, which is consistent throughout his career. I always like the look of his films, even though he is often thought of as a ‘commercial’ director, as opposed to ‘artistic’. But I think this type of categorization is a bit arbitrary when it comes to such an important cinematic figure as Spielberg. Malick is a very good choice, too, Fletch. I love the look of his films and his quiet, careful execution in scene after scene. Scorcese I find too variable to rate as a near equal to Kubrick in this regard.
There are others out there now, that I am sure could be championed by our fellow contributors, but I think Spielberg deserves recognition on this site. I know he loves Kubrick, too, and I think his movies owe something to Kubrick in terms of their high technical quality.
kubrick may be a great perfectionist, but sir alfred wrote the book on cinematic perfectionism.
Speilberg and scorsese are great. They are defn comparable defn as perfectionists but not in terms of style and structures. Wes anderson is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being compared i feel.. :)
What do you guys think of Coppola being compared?
As for Coppola, personally, I have only really liked The Conversation and Apocalypse Now of his films that I have seen, so I am not really able to compare him to the others. I don’t think he has the same creative vision, except, of course, in that one brilliant film (Apocalypse), to Kubrick, Scorcese, or Spielberg. I could care less about the Godfather saga, for instance, though I know everyone else raves about it. But that is just my opinion.
Reply to Bobby: You are right, of course, but who compares (if anyone) to these greats now?
I just recalled what Kurosawa once said that, he shot just enough shots so that he would have something to edit with to make films. Totally opposed to what kubrick might have probably set out to do while making his films… geniuses all!
2 things off the top of my head,
1) his passion for each genre that does not stay for long and each movie he makes in a particular genre, either creates a benchmark or breaks the norms that already exist.
2) his flair to shoot scenes that force you to think, there is no alternative way of doing them.
His charisma is really overtaking and his solitude in England was amazing.that he was so alone and made such films with so much accuracy is adorable.
Stanley was one of the ‘Great Masters of Cinema’, no doubt on that. He was an obsessive about his work, each film he directed was a masterpiece, no matter the subject or genre, they all ended being perfect. As one painter ones said “Every time I paint something in the canvas, i’m risking my life”, Stanley was risking his life in each take he shot and that’s the reason why all of his films were perfect. He had a gift and worked very hard to demonstrate it, he had no choice. I love the people who take life in a such profound and serious way. Probably Wong Kar Wai or Miyasaki are two film-makers alive who i consider may be doing something similar in that sense…
@ eduardo, benham: yes, thats probably very true. If you guys havent read 2001:A Space odyssey, i would recommend it! there’s a letter at the beginning for stanley, its quite revealing on how clarke and stanley worked to make this film. and also, how stanley changed crafted that book for the film.
I’m trying to get “colour me kubrick”. you guys seen it?
Here is a list of names of auteurs from these posts who may be close to Stanley’s style:
1.Speilberg
2.Mallik
3. Coppola
4. Scorsese
5. Paul Thomas Anderson
6. Wong Kar Wai
7. Miyasaki
Any comments?
Spielberg??
No, he is very far from Stanley!
e.
Spielberg asked to kubrick when he had some problems with his films, obviously Kubrick helped him. It was like some kind of retoric. Kubrick is such a unlimited inspiration for every director that you can see new movie and you know tha they would never exist without kubrick work, for example WALL-E
He’s from the Bronx.
You say what sets Stanley apart? Well, that’s easy.
He made 2001: A Space Odyssey, I think that’s all you really have to say.
And I agree that P.T. Anderson’s style is similar to Kubrick’s.
Oh, and I did see “Colour Me Kubrick,” it wasn’t that good but had a lot of funny homages to A Clockwork Orange.
What sets Kubrick apart is the same thing that set David Foster Wallace apart from his peers: Kubrick was an actual genius working in a field where most only adopt the pose of a genius. That he applied his genius to the art of filmmaking, and not something else, was his gift to the lovers of cinema.
And to me, the filmmakers who come closest to apporaching Kubrick’s genius are Bruno Dumont, Michael Haneke, Claire Denis, Carlos Reygadas, Frederick Wiseman, and Kiyoshi Kurosawa.
PTA has a ways to go before he can be spoken of as being in league with Kubrick, although he is trying his hardest to jimmy himself in to the conversation. I think Altman, obviously, is more of an avatar for Anderson than anyone, and I think he will be remembered the same way, as a master iconoclast and maverick. PTA doesn’t have the ability to distance himself like Kubrick, and I don’t think he ever will. He is too in love with melodramatics to make that leap, viz. the end of TWBB.
Spielberg isn’t half the filmmaker that Scorsese is, let alone Kubrick.
Colour Me Kubrick is execrable.
What makes the latter half of Kubrick’s career unique is a life-long ambition to make a film about the Holocaust. However, the subject matter not only depressed him on an unimaginable level but he also felt that a single film could not properly summerize everything the Holocaust done to humanity.
On top of that, Kubrick’s repertoire focuses on plans going horribly wrong whereas the Final Solution was a plan gone horribly right! These reasons, along with Spielberg’s “Schindler’s List” was what made Kubrick back off making such a picture.
If you look at his last few films, especially “The Shining,” you will witness staggering allegories to genocide and Nazism. They are eloquently explored in the book “The Wolf at the Door: Stanley Kubrick, History, and the Holocaust” by Geoffrey Cocks.
Read a sample here:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0110.html
What i love about him is his silence.. for me it is quiet peacefulness. he uses it like a hammer in the Shinning.
what sets Kubrick apart, for me, to other film makers is his indefatigable (sorry for the 10$ word) dedication to get the EXACT image in his head onto film. any auteur that can even claim to be called an auteur must have that ability to read a story or a scene, and imagine every single detail in his/her mind- this is without question.
where most film makers fail to meet Kubrick’s standard is when they start making compromises- not shooting enough takes to achieve the “THAT’S IT!” moment, skimping out on minor details like colors and set props, changing locations altogether due to difficulty, time constraints, weather, and financial issues, or just simply not having the talent or the artistry to reach their vision. Kubrick didn’t let ANY of that shit ever get to him.
he was determined NO MATTER WHAT to get whatever he saw in his head onto the screen; even at the cost of comfort, affirmation, reputation, patience, and money- all things he didn’t give a fuck about, if it meant he could achieve that blinding ecstasy of getting a scene right. that’s what exemplifies him as the best artist in cinema for me.
Mac, no one, alive or dead, is as good as Stanley Kubrick.
None, I repeat none, of those guys are geniuses. Stanley was the last film genius, PTA may be the last living one.
PTA may be able to follow Kubricks footsteps,but ,he`ll never fill his shoes.And that is a complement.
Sai Abishek
can anyone dare elucidate? :)