Stanley Kubrick

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.

Moderator: DarkImbecile

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#376 Post by MichaelB » Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:02 am

The Doogster wrote:I stand by my assertion that Kubrick was influenced by Pale Flower. There is no way a filmmaker could have independently radically altered his style and adopted an appreciation for Penderecki compositions by chance.
Why not? Krzysztof Penderecki was one of the biggest names in the musical avant-garde of the 1960s, and plenty of filmmakers have made use of his work - William Friedkin in The Exorcist being a particularly good example. In fact, I'm not sure what relevance this has towards 2001, since that film doesn't use Penderecki compositions - have you got him mixed up with György Ligeti, or 2001 mixed up with The Shining?

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#377 Post by Roger Ryan » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:24 pm

MichaelB wrote:I see he cut Ikarie XB-1 out of the final draft!

I'm convinced that Kubrick must have seen it (since he reputedly watched every SFX-heavy sci-fi film of any merit when developing 2001, Ikarie was around at just the right time, and there are distinct visual and thematic similarities), but I'm still searching for concrete evidence.
No mention of IKARIE XB-1, but this recent interview with Douglas Trumbull specifies that Kubrick watched UNIVERSE (1960) and TO MOON AND BEYOND (1964) prior to working on 2001.

The interview also goes into some depth regarding the slit-scan technology used to create the climatic "star gate" sequence.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#378 Post by zedz » Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:19 pm

MichaelB wrote:
The Doogster wrote:I stand by my assertion that Kubrick was influenced by Pale Flower. There is no way a filmmaker could have independently radically altered his style and adopted an appreciation for Penderecki compositions by chance.
Why not? Krzysztof Penderecki was one of the biggest names in the musical avant-garde of the 1960s, and plenty of filmmakers have made use of his work - William Friedkin in The Exorcist being a particularly good example. In fact, I'm not sure what relevance this has towards 2001, since that film doesn't use Penderecki compositions - have you got him mixed up with György Ligeti, or 2001 mixed up with The Shining?
Yes, this argument for influence does seem to be extremely tenuous. All it would have taken for Kubrick to get 'turned on' to Ligeti or Penderecki is for one of his friends to say, "Hey, you've got to hear this amazing music!" That's what people did in the sixties - hang out and listen to records. Getting interested in a piece of music purely because it was used in another movie seems to me the least likely explanation for Kubrick's use of it.

The fabled story behind the use of Ligeti in 2001 - that it was a temp track that stuck - also suggests very strongly that it was favoured music of Kubrick's (or the editor's) that was lying around at the time, not that he was crafting a loving tribute to a film that nobody had seen.

EDIT: Actually, I was just trying to imagine how The Doogster's favoured scenario would have had to play out, and it's ridiculous enough to somehow be enshrined.

Somebody in the UK goes to the extraordinary expense of importing a 35mm print of Pale Flower and arranges a private screening for Stanley Kubrick (or a private screening that Kubrick is invited to). A bunch of folk watch Pale Flower (unsubbed, naturally, unless somebody can find evidence of an English-language festival screening before 1967). Rather than saying, "I don't understand Japanese" and stomping out, Stanley stays to the end of the film, absolutely enchanted. He asks what that music is. His host says, "What? I have no idea." So Stanley charges an assistant to track down "that music from the weird Japanese film."

Said assistant, flailing in the dark, picks up a bunch of records that seem to be in the same ballpark, says, "will this do?" Kubrick hears Ligeti amongst this random mess and runs with it. Some years later, the assistant stumbles across the actual Penderecki piece they were looking for in the first place, and gets it to Kubrick in time for The Shining. Or he does find the Penderecki piece back in the 60s, and Stanley says, "get me more stuff like this, but, I don't know, spacier." Ligeti intrat. A decade later, he remembers Penderecki.

Even the Beatles were pimping European avant-garde music (e.g. Stockhausen) in the 60s. It was extremely fashionable, and it would be extraordinary if the first anybody working on 2001 had heard of Ligeti or Penderecki was in an obscure Japanese film.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#379 Post by MichaelB » Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:38 pm

zedz wrote:The fabled story behind the use of Ligeti in 2001 - that it was a temp track that stuck - also suggests very strongly that it was favoured music of Kubrick's (or the editor's) that was lying around at the time, not that he was crafting a loving tribute to a film that nobody had seen.
Exactly - if he intended to pay homage to Pale Flower, why did he waste poor Alex North's time by commissioning an original score? Wouldn't it have made more sense to commission one from Toru Takemitsu directly? Or at the very least someone with considerably stronger avant-garde credentials than those that North possessed?

Having watched the clip that The Doogster posted, I'd actually say that the resemblance is actually considerably less striking than the one between Lancelot du Lac and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And since that's turned out to be a complete coincidence, I have no problem believing that the same is true of this case.

The Doogster
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Oz

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#380 Post by The Doogster » Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:28 pm

Look beyond the music. OK, I concede that avant garde composers were all the rage in the late 60s and therefore Kubrick probably independently discovered them.

However, the compositional and stylistic visual resemblances are just too great to chalk up to coincidence. Shot after shot after shot from Pale Flower turns up in 2001 and The Shining.

And how do you explain the clear influence of Herostratus? That to me proves Kubrick was in an experimental phase and was deeply into avant garde filmmaking, and was not averse to borrowing ideas from other movies. The Bowman head shots I referred to earlier are so completely stylistically different from anything else in 2001 that Kubrick must have seen Herostratus, had an epiphany, rushed back to the studio, and inserted shots derived from Levy's techniques into 2001.

How do you know Kubrick did not see Pale Flower in the late 60's, either in the UK or another country? He was deeply into cutting edge films, and film noir, so a hip Japanese film noir would probably have made his knees go weak. Maybe he got a print for his home cinema? If he didn't see it in the late 60's, then surely he must have seen it by the late 70's when he made The Shining.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#381 Post by knives » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:08 pm

There's no evidence of your claim though and just foxnewsing this won't work here where you have to bring forth evidence. There's already been a great deal of evidence provided showing that it was extremely unlikely for the notoriously homesick Kubrick to have seen the film.

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#382 Post by Brian C » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:12 pm

The Doogster wrote:Look beyond the music. OK, I concede that avant garde composers were all the rage in the late 60s and therefore Kubrick probably independently discovered them.

However, the compositional and stylistic visual resemblances are just too great to chalk up to coincidence. Shot after shot after shot from Pale Flower turns up in 2001 and The Shining.

And how do you explain the clear influence of Herostratus? That to me proves Kubrick was in an experimental phase and was deeply into avant garde filmmaking, and was not averse to borrowing ideas from other movies. The Bowman head shots I referred to earlier are so completely stylistically different from anything else in 2001 that Kubrick must have seen Herostratus, had an epiphany, rushed back to the studio, and inserted shots derived from Levy's techniques into 2001.

How do you know Kubrick did not see Pale Flower in the late 60's, either in the UK or another country? He was deeply into cutting edge films, and film noir, so a hip Japanese film noir would probably have made his knees go weak. Maybe he got a print for his home cinema? If he didn't see it in the late 60's, then surely he must have seen it by the late 70's when he made The Shining.
Oh man, just give up this ghost already. Take a step back and try to see just how twisted and illogical your reasoning is here, please.

The Doogster
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Oz

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#383 Post by The Doogster » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:20 pm

Brian C wrote:Oh man, just give up this ghost already. Take a step back and try to see just how twisted and illogical your reasoning is here, please.
OK, I officially give up. I hereby declare that Kubrick never borrowed anyone else's ideas.

But at least admit that some dialogue from Beverly Hills Cop ended up in Full Metal Jacket :D

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#384 Post by swo17 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:21 pm

That's...not giving up.
knives wrote:There's no evidence of your claim though and just foxnewsing this won't work here where you have to bring forth evidence.
In fairness though, Kubrick did foxnews a few of his movies.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#385 Post by warren oates » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:48 pm

swo17 wrote:
knives wrote:There's no evidence of your claim though and just foxnewsing this won't work here where you have to bring forth evidence.
In fairness though, Kubrick did foxnews a few of his movies.
Well, some say he did. At least, he won't deny he did.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#386 Post by MichaelB » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:37 am

The problem with The Doogster's approach is that it's turning obvious speculation into hard certainty and expecting us to swallow assertions as facts.

It's not impossible that Kubrick saw Pale Flower prior to making or completing 2001, but its lack of distribution in the English-speaking world at the time makes it very unlikely without a plausible theory as to how he could have facilitated this.

So my money's on "Lancelot du Lac-style coincidence" without more evidence.

I certainly agree that it's more believable that he could have seen Herostratus in 1967.

Wittsdream
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#387 Post by Wittsdream » Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:39 pm

It appears that Michael C. Hall (of Dexter and Six Feet Under fame) is set to play the lead role in Kubrick's "treatment" of the true story of Herbert Emerson Wilson - titled "God Fearing Man" - about a Canadian minister who led a double life as one of the most feared bank robbers (safecrackers) at the beginning of the previous century.

Wilson wrote a paperback book about his exploits called "I Stole $16,000,000" circa 1956 (which, not coincidentally, was the title of a fictionalized script that Kubrick was shopping around to Kirk Douglas at the time of Paths of Glory in hopes that it may be produced under Douglas' Bryna label). The project never saw the light of day!

Anyway, here are further details about the upcoming project, one of several Kubrick-based stories that are being resurrected.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#388 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:56 pm

I don't know if anyone has had the opportunity to see the Stanley Kubrick Archives exhibit that has been traveling around the world for the past ten years, but I greatly enjoyed visiting the exhibit in Toronto this past weekend. With a room devoted to each of his released films (plus a separate area devoted to his early photographic work and unfinished films), there were some amazing items on display. I imagine many of these are documented in the Taschen book, but I loved seeing the survival kit props from STRANGELOVE (including the miniature combination Bible and Russian phrase book!), prop axes from THE SHINING (one contained a small hole in the handle where stage blood was pumped through for the Halloran death scene) and some of the masks from EYES WIDE SHUT. The displayed correspondences were also fascinating, including a letter from Sue Lyon written in 1994 thanking Kubrick for giving her a start in films, but noting she now enjoys a much simpler life out of the public eye.

The TIFF Bell Lighthouse, which is presenting the archive collection, is also showing a retrospective of Kubrick's films. I saw a brand new 70mm print of 2001 Saturday afternoon introduced by Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood (who returned for a Q&A after the screening); both actors were very charming with plenty of anecdotes at the ready. Saturday evening Christiane Kubrick and Jan Harlan modestly introduced a 35mm screening of EYES WIDE SHUT. I say "modestly" because neither participant felt the need to say too much about Kubrick or the making of the film (I like how Harlan described the film as one that demands to be seen twice to be appreciated which he considered both an attribute and a detriment).

I was quite disappointed, however, when the screening of EYES WIDE SHUT actually began. The 35mm reels was clearly cobbled together from two prints that went through the rounds back in 1999. The soundtrack was damaged at the beginning so the opening credits played in silence before the music started abruptly some twenty seconds in. The image displayed constant scratches and dirt with some missing frames as well along the way. Every other reel reasonably resembled how I remember the film looking in 35mm when I saw it on first release, but the alternate reels looked like they came from an inferior print (almost like a 16mm blow-up). On top of it all, this was the censored version with the digitally-added figures covering up some of the orgy action!

I suppose this is the state of retrospectives these days (especially when depending on Warner Brothers for the materials?), but it is very sad that the film's line producer and the director's widow are expected to introduce a ragged old censored print. Fortunately, the new 70mm print of 2001, while not perfect (there was still some minor damage and dirt on occasion), was more than an adequate representation of Kubrick's vision. TIFF is promoting a upcoming new DCP presentation of BARRY LYNDON which I imagine will look excellent, but I'd be wary of seeing his other work - the rarely-screened international cut of THE SHINING will almost certainly be from a print that's been around since 1980.

User avatar
copen
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:43 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#389 Post by copen » Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:33 pm

Day of the Fight (kubrick short 1951)

there are two versions. 16-minutes, and 12-minutes.
the first 4minutes of the 16-minute version is not kubrick directing, it's just stock footage used as intro to the main documentary.

am i correct about this?

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#390 Post by Stefan Andersson » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:29 am

Various interesting comments on The Shining:

http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/eng ... ining.html#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.kubrickism.com/publications/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://adaptation.oxfordjournals.org/co ... HXRRFrpdqo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Recent analysis of pre-production archive materials re: screenwriting process

http://www.kubrickism.com/projects/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.openculture.com/2014/01/stan ... ining.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Scroll down for more links

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/serious ... ng-kubrick" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://jonnys53.blogspot.se/2007/06/wha ... -seen.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://idyllopuspress.com/idyllopus/fil ... erview.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Meticulous scene by scene analysis

User avatar
copen
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:43 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#391 Post by copen » Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:39 pm

In case this hasn't been posted here before, 3 Stanley Kubrick audio interviews wtih Michel Ciment. 1976, 1980, 1987. The speed of the tape is bit fast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvoxjkTNOXE

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#392 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:13 pm

Charlie Rose interviewing Jan Harlan, Christiane Kubrick and Martin Scorsese in 2001. This is erroneously linked in the first page as the page is now dead, but I'm delighted this popped up on YouTube.

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#393 Post by Stefan Andersson » Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:24 am

http://www.theoverlookhotel.com/page/4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Scroll down to see a call sheet for The Shining, re: shooting a subsequently deleted scene with Torrance´s scrapbook and the discovery that Grady was killed in the flat the Torrances live in. Seems to tie in with the reincarnation theme.


oh yeah
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#395 Post by oh yeah » Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:34 pm

Speaking of A Clockwork Orange, I'm surprised (or maybe not) by just how much weaker that film gets with every viewing. At age 18 or so it was possibly my favorite film ever, but now (maybe after 9 or 10 viewings) it seems so immature, so cruel, so simplistic, so grating; especially compared to the other late Kubrick films I consider his masterpieces -- Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lyndon, 2001, The Shining. I love how those films open up on repeated viewings, even if its the 30th time or something; they seem almost bottomless, especially the unimpeachable EWS. And yet ACO is a crude, achingly obvious sociopolitical satire in the vein of Strangelove, yet lacking the humor and the power and greatness of Strangelove. I don't think Kubrick is at all the misanthrope his detractors claim he is -- I'd say "nonhumanist pessimism" best describes the curiously detached and unique way of looking at the world that his films possess -- and yet ACO seems to me a film of pure, unadulterated grade-school misanthropy. Every character but Alex is directed in the most irritatingly stylized manner, and everyone but Alex is depicted via super wide-angle lens as being distorted, grotesque, hateful, petty. It's a world where everything and everyone is rotten to the core -- everyone except little Alex, that is. I find this and many other aspects of the film problematic, but I won't make this post even longer and launch into the many reasons why its ideology is troubling and reactionary.

I just think that the poetry and grace and subtlety of a film like Barry Lyndon, EWS or 2001 is beautiful and such qualities are almost entirely lacking in ACO, which gets in the air when it's a pure adrenaline-rush of music and images -- yet in fact is actually a dull and talky, even stagy, piece of cinema for the majority of its running-time. It's surprisingly poorly-paced, with nearly every scene having the same sense of pace and dynamics and rhythm, and making the same philosophical point over and over again. It's, put simply, a one-note film, and I'd have to put it at the bottom of the Kubrick list at the moment (which doesn't include the two I've still not seen, Spartacus and Fear and Desire). Even a relatively mediocre and amateurish early effort like Killer's Kiss feels incredibly refreshing and invigorating to watch compared to the lifeless, plodding, misguided cruelty of Clockwork. No wonder Kubrick pulled the film from circulation and reportedly refused to discuss it with even his closest friends and family, decades after the fact. It's not without merit, or a terrible film, but it is, essentially, a mistake. Thankfully, the remainder of his career after that was the master at his enigmatic, mature, mysterious best. It's just odd that that little film from 1971 with so much ugliness at its core and so few signs of what makes this director great has somehow become, to a majority of people, Kubrick's signature work.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#396 Post by Zot! » Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 pm

Don't disagree with much of your argument, but Then I never felt Kubrick was ever faultless, and none of his films seem perfect to me. He did however possess a certain assuradness, and technical brilliance that makes it hard to argue his brilliance and unique talent, regardless of ACO and some his other more questionable indulgences.

oh yeah
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#397 Post by oh yeah » Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:15 pm

Zot! wrote:Don't disagree with much of your argument, but Then I never felt Kubrick was ever faultless, and none of his films seem perfect to me. He did however possess a certain assuradness, and technical brilliance that makes it hard to argue his brilliance and unique talent, regardless of ACO and some his other more questionable indulgences.
I definitely don't think Kubrick is faultless, and indeed 2001, Barry Lyndon, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut are the only films of his I consider masterpieces. It's these films alone (though Full Metal Jacket and Strangelove are great too) which make Kubrick probably my favorite director. I do need to re-watch the pre-Strangelove films like Lolita, Paths of Glory and The Killing again, but I just feel that it was only with 2001 that he really reached the top of the mountain. That's why Clockwork seems like such an anomaly to me I guess.

nolanoe
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:25 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#398 Post by nolanoe » Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:19 pm

Clockwork Orange may not be subtle on some fronts (sex, violence, politics), but I find it subtle in its depiction of stereotypes. It's his funniest film by far. The score is perfect and quite influential. I'd go as far and say his use of color here is even more spellbinding than in 2001.
I also do love Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shot and 2001. But to me, Clockwork Orange is the film where all of his ideas come together.

But then again, It's my favorite film of all time.

The one that has lost quite a bit of its appeal to me is actually The Shining. I saw it fairly recently on a big screen, and... it just... didn't really work all that well. I still love it, but... Especially compared to Eyes Wide Shut and Barry Lyndon, it feels like a bit of a detour.

EricJ
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:32 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#399 Post by EricJ » Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:32 pm

nolanoe wrote:Clockwork Orange may not be subtle on some fronts (sex, violence, politics), but I find it subtle in its depiction of stereotypes. It's his funniest film by far. The score is perfect and quite influential. I'd go as far and say his use of color here is even more spellbinding than in 2001.
I also do love Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shot and 2001. But to me, Clockwork Orange is the film where all of his ideas come together.
It's a product of its time--60's British delinquents weren't our delinquents, we were even more clueless about what to do with them, and the 1971-era "future" looks more Mod than Rocker--but it's also a product of Burgess's book, which he'd reportedly written after his own wife had been similarly attacked.

It's hailed by a lot of the college Kubrick fans who hero-worship Alex and don't know Kubrick directed anything besides this and Jacket, but it's one of the weaker efforts.
Apart from the obligatory Kubrick Crazy-Look in the opening, the "Kubrick" doesn't come out till the second half, when the "cured" Alex discovers how nasty the non-delinquent half of the world is.

Stefan Andersson
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#400 Post by Stefan Andersson » Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:53 am

Barry Lyndon info, including a pic of the 0.7 Zeiss lens, and a link to the original Guardian review

http://www.theguardian.com/film/gallery ... n-pictures" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theguardian.com/film/from-th ... eview-1975" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post Reply