Who's better than Stanley Kubrick?
Kubrick was a master at certain things(visual detail,cinematography,control over the image), but when it comes to everything else but the BIG questions, many many better directors. I think he gets such props b/c he took on the big themes, the bomb, space-AI-manVShistools,sex&capitalism.
He wasn’t interested in dialogue, his representation of the world is unexplored, his characters failed to dramatize his stories-music&imagery did.
I can se why younger viewers love him though.
Yeah, yeah. I can see why older viewers love him, too.
Have we learned anything for all this?
^Some people learned a lot:)
Uhhhh, I said younger viewers like him, not older viewers. The problem is when you’ve watched his films for 20 years, you can see how Kubrick was only the best at what he did and that he was completely uninterested in the interior spaces of humans. In fact, if he wasn’t such a visual mastermind, one would think his work wouldve been seen as pretentious because of his focus on the GRAND picture, the meaning of it all, etc. It’s easy parody material for that reason.
Yeah, and I said I see why older viewers like him. I don’t think you have a point. I couldn’t care less about “he could be seen as pretentious” as a reason for him appealing more to younger viewers. This isn’t interesting.
I said, if you took away all the visual mastery, his focus on the grand scheme or meaning of it all would probably seem pretentious.
I’m just responding to the op that’s all.
I do have a point, Kubrick wasn’t interesting in individuals,personality, personal struggles. All his films were blatant statements on humanity that are dated.
I guess you can’t take the op’s question too seriously.Kubrick is good at certain things and really was brilliant at attaining a lot of control over the final result, he had quite a bit of freedom considering the budgets he worked. Other than that, I don’t see how you could compare him to many others work. His film lack a sense of humor, except in strangelove, which was greatly assisted by Peter Sellera as well as other flaws. Can’t compare filmmakers like the op suggests…..
Is there a checklist for great films that includes “sense of humor” in order to be great?
That aside, the “no humor” thing is a standard bugaboo for Kubrick detractors. In fact, there’s elements of black humor/grotesque humor in all of his films. For example:
The Shining
Lolita
Full Metal Jacket
Barry Lyndon
No humor?
In Kubrick?
Come on.
Guys….
the longevity of this intellectually exhausted thread is totally baffling!
To the extent that I’m responsible, Liam, I apologize, but I couldn’t let the silly ol’ “Kubrick is humorless” thing go unchallenged.
Sorry, I didn’t quite put that quite right,although I never wrote “no humor” or “humorless” as Matt and Ben put later. For me, the only film where I appreciate his humor is Strangelove, the parts that are funny are because of Seller’s stellar work aiding Kubricks approach to humor. Other than that, I find his sense of humor unfunny(at most getting a smirk), for example the commentary on the action on screen “Peace is our Profession” “Introduction to Sociology” etc, it’s too dry and sarcastic, which helps add to the reason why he’s described as cold. I don’t expect him to have me rolling on the ground in laughter,either. His haughty disdain for the human race comes out in his humor and films, and I think this is a valid reason to knock him from the top. Maybe if he switched it up for one film….
Sergio Leone is on the same playing field as Kubrick
This description—“no humor” or “humorless”—is a common superficial criticism of Kubrick’s films that doesn’t bear much attention to the actual films, so that’s why I set it in quotation marks. Is there a significant difference between “no humor,” “humorless,” and “his film lack a sense of humor?” There’s a difference between “I don’t like the humor in his films” and " his films lack a sense of humor." By the way, what do you mean “he wasn’t interested in dialogue, his representation of the world is unexplored, his characters failed to dramatize his stories?”
Leonardo Da Vinci
Fair enough Maud’s Son.
My initial response which I shortened was as follows: I think that the performances Kubrick got out of just about everyone in EYES WIDE SHUT and THE SHINING, for example, are every bit as mannered as the Seller’s or Scott’s physical comedy in STRANGELOVE.
However, per your comments: “the only film where I appreciate his humor is Strangelove, the parts that are funny are because of Seller’s stellar work aiding Kubricks approach to humor.”
and “it’s too dry and sarcastic” for you. Makes sense. I however find it just dry enough and sarcastic enough to be kind of … delightful? The comedy of manners that results in EYES WIDE SHUT from characters’ choices of words and their delivery of those choices within a grand pageant of power hierarchy is fascinating to watch every single time. It is what has given that movie the greatest longevity for me out of all Kubrick’s stuff.
Nobody. His films exist in another dimension than any other director.
@Maud’s son. Stanley Kubrick’s dialogue is second to none,
From the top of my head:
“Certainly. You don’t think I had it cooked,
do you? It’s down the shopping centre.”- The Killing
“Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it.
I can feel it. My mind is going. " 2001
“Come and get one in the yarbles,
if ya have any yarbles, ya eunuch jelly thou!”- Clockwork Orange
“F***.” -EWS
“This heart of Lischen’s was like many a neighboring town
and had been stormed and occupied several times before
Barry came to invest it.” – Barry Lyndon
Every time this thread gets bumped, God kills a bunny.
Kubrick’s one of the greatest ever, and director of three of my absolute all-time favorite films, but I know problems exist whenever someone tries to create art.
Kubrick wasn’t prolific, and it can easily be said that he “just” took other people’s written material and ran with it in the cinema format. But ya know what? This director expanded and contextualized every story and scenario he got his hands on, and was truly able to make that material his own, in his own way. In that sense, and just from my own limited knowledge of cinema directors, I feel Kubrick was equaled only by Hitchcock (or maybe Orson Welles) in what an auteur director could do to a particular scenario or story to cast his own perspective and style onto the narrative, and to make it work.
SK’s cinematic works overall are truly, truly awesome to behold.
@BYRON: The dialogue or voice-over narration you cited —
“Certainly. You don’t think I had it cooked,
do you? It’s down the shopping centre.”- The Killing
“Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it.
I can feel it. My mind is going. " 2001
“Come and get one in the yarbles,
if ya have any yarbles, ya eunuch jelly thou!”- Clockwork Orange
“F***.” -EWS
“This heart of Lischen’s was like many a neighboring town
and had been stormed and occupied several times before
Barry came to invest it.” —
was probably all written by a screenwriter besides Kubrick or even the original novelist or playwright. I admire Kubrick as much as anyone and was the one who “discovered” THE SEAFARERS but the auteur theory does not mean that the auteur is actually the author of all the dialogue, or even the basic plot of a given movie. If the dialogue is what mainly impresses you in Kubrick’s films, then give him credit for hiring great writers or buying great works of literature. (Hitchcock too.)
instead of the auteur theory perhaps this theory should be the basis of future analysis"The Schreiber theory is a writer-centred approach to film criticism which holds that the principal author of a film is generally the screenwriter rather than the director. The term was coined by David Kipen, Director of Literature at the US National Endowment for the Arts."
@Frank P Tomasulo-
I was responding to the earlier post that stated he didn’t care about dialogue,
when just the opposite is true. Although he wasn’t the sole author of many of his
screenplays, he contributed to all of them. At the very least, in the case of “Barry Lyndon”,
he modernized the word choice and the flow to make the dialogue memorable, which is
of course the least any adapter could do.
-“… this heart of Lischen’s was like many a town in the neighborhood in which she dwelt,
and had been stormed and occupied several times before I came to invest in it;” – Thackeray
-“This heart of Lischen’s was like many a neighboring town
and had been stormed and occupied several times before
Barry came to invest it.” – Kubrick.
“Is there a checklist for great films that includes “sense of humor” in order to be great?”
Probably. There is definitely a checklist that includes a sense of human. Die bunnies, die! (just kidding, I like bunnies:)
@ Liam Allen – Were you just bringing the Schreiber theory into this discussion, or suggesting that you endorse its view that the writer would take precedence over a director, i.e. Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock or Orson Welles, as the “auteur” of a work of cinema?
T.J.ROYAL@ hitchcock was far from the moral philosopher he was presented as by the revisionist critics of the right bank,he was primarily interested in technique so the actual narrative content and therefore subtext of his films had nothing to do with him. orson welles on the other hand was an equal partner with gregg toland, herman j mankiewicz and the entire mercury theater in the making of kane so lets dub all of those collaborators the auteur of that film. the magnificent ambersons was welles first personal work.[as for kubrick i have to plead ignorance]EDIT: so to clarify in most situations ,with the exception of some writer-directors, i would subscribe to a combination of 60% schreiber theory 40% auteur theory.
Maybe Kurosawa or Mizoguchi but Kubrick is really on a different level altogether after Dr. Strangelove and before Eyes Wide Shut so the answer is probably no.
Kubrick is the greatest! master of all genres…
remote-viewer
^ Carlos has it right. Kubrick is one of my favorites, but this is a silly thing to try to discuss as if there’s an objective answer or consensus that needs to be met.