Eh. I’m going to stop trying to fit this on Twitter.
I love this quote by Jacques Rivette on Stanley Kubrick (from this list of filmmaker trashtalk about other filmmakers):
“Kubrick is a machine, a mutant, a Martian. He has no human feeling whatsoever. But it’s great when the machine films other machines, as in 2001.”
It sums up how I’ve always felt about Kubrick’s films, which are sometimes pretty but to the last leave me feeling absolutely nothing, and feature humans acting in ways I cannot credit, believe, or support. And since he writes his films too I can lay that at his door safely. (Sadly, that kind of goes for 2001, too–I loved it as a kid, but watching it as an adult I cannot fathom why I loved it as a kid. It’s endless, lifeless, and bloodless. I guess I liked the first half of Full Metal Jacket, which is basically an anthology movie with only two flicks in it, one of which is a tight, amazing short story. The other is entirely forgettable except for a horribly racist patter of dialogue that has entered popular consciousness–that would be the "me love you long time" thing–and the helmet/peace sign line, which is pretty great, admittedly. But I couldn’t even tell you what else happens in the second half.)
Of course, he’s my father’s favorite director, so I grew up seeing a whole lot of Kubrick. And taking it as axiomatic that he’s amazing and I’m just a dumb girl who’s Missing It. And my husband loves Eyes Wide Shut, which actually sends me into paroxysms of loathing, because it is the most mutantmartian of all the Kubrick films, and no one acts like a person, instead, they are a bunch of misogynist douche-powered fuckmachines barfing half-digested plot and turnip-dialogue everywhere. OBVIOUSLY MY KIND OF SHOW. Even Nicole Kidman–who even remembers what their characters’ names were? Was Tom Cruise named Bob? IMDB says Bill and Alice. Whatever. Even Nicole’s character fully internalizes the mountains of total horseshit that Tom Cruise shovels onto her and is all yes, I am a whore. Fantastic. Awesome. Allow me to subscribe to this newsletter.
I guess I’m just relieved someone else feels that way. I suppose I do like Dr. Strangelove, but that’s satire and high farce, people aren’t required to behave normally, and are actually penalized for doing so. I wish he’d stuck to that. Clockwork Orange is the same sort of thing–these are not real people doing real things–and that was all right. But neither of those films touched me emotionally or rank high on my list of favorites, and I doubt I’d volunteer to watch either again.
I do value the Martian perspective. But I’d rather go in for the emotional realism and humankindness of, say, Quentin Tarantino, than ever watch another Kubrick joint.
My loathing for Eyes Wide Shut is deep and dark. You’re flipping out because your wife once had a fantasy? Seriously? Just bring your face over here so I can punch it thoroughly then sit you down in front of some Jerry Springer. Then we’ll talk. It just makes no sense as a premise, and a movie filled with unlikeable characters are really boring sex scenes can’t be based on such shaky legs.
So, yeah, I’m with you. Kubrick doesn’t much float my boat.
Yeah, this is what I mean. Also, that she totally buys into his stupid shit, that she’s done something wrong. And the movie as text buys that her having a dream (a DREAM. she couldn’t even control it!) is morally equivalent to his having sex with random strangers. Ugh. It’s a film that hates women, and reinforces its own shit internally until it’s like a moebius strip of misogyny.
The film doesn’t hate women. Tom Cruise’s character hates women and he’s a pathetic douchebag. We’re not supposed to love Tom Cruise. The audience is supposed to be repulsed by his rather childish reaction and his utterly pathetic reaction to a version of female sexuality that doesn’t center on him. So he runs around town trying to find some form of sexuality that he’s comfortable with and he’s repulsed at every turn.
Again, I think that’s a generous interpretation. I feel the text sides with Cruise, he is the hero and the POV we are invited into. Kidman has no identity and no story, she is merely his torturer.
That’s true. Female characters never really do well in Kubrick movies. Forget about the Bechdel Test – he usually fails at having one women with a character and a name.
I will argue that Alex is also the hero with the POV that we’re invited into and the tension between the POV and the revulsion we feel at that kind of character is what makes Kubrkick great.
Then again, I guess this goes to author intent. I think that if we’re supposed to love Tom Cruise (or Alex from Clockwork Orange) and we hate that character then the movie is a failure, but if we are invited into the POV and we feel revulsion on purpose then it can be a work of genius (or just an unpleasant movie going experience I guess)
Given how many young men have fully identified with Alex over the years and not been repulsed at all, I think we can say the success of that tension is debatable to say the least.
Young men are stupid. They also relate to Wolverine.
If you’re not endorsing your protagonist you ought to make damn sure you’re being clear about that.
Alex starts out the movie beating up an old man in a gutter. Jack Nicholson is on full Jack Nicholson creepy in the first scene. He starts Full Metal Jacket with a drill instructor yelling charming lines about ripping off heads and shitting down necks. Humbert Humbert is a child molester who kills Quilty in the first scene.
And every Kubrick movie has that evil stare into the camera where you are convinced that the guy is just waiting for the right moment to gut you like a fish.
By Eyes Wide Shut the “Directed by Stanley Kubrick” part of the movie is pretty much a giveaway that you’re going to be repulsed by the main character and that’s by design.
I think it’s a faulty argument that we should have known going in not to endorse Cruise because it was Kubrick–every text must stand on its own. But also, many people see it differently, and that shows it’s not all that clear.
Also the drill instructor is not the protagonist of FMJ! Matthew Modine is, and he’s a good person we are supposed to identify with.
Why the consistent, untenable axiom that every text must stand on its own? The very star system on which most Hollywood movies are based presumes that no text stands on its own, that we gain pleasure and insight from intertextuality. If I have a trigger that someone else doesn’t, and it shows up in a movie, it doesn’t invalidate either of our responses to that movie. Likewise, if someone (I’d argue most people) comes to a movie with knowledge of the director’s/actor’s previous work and how this work differs from, comments on, etc. that work, why is that a less valid response just because a text “must” stand on its own?
I’m not sure it is untenable. Especially in movies. If you must rely on audiences knowing and accepting your past failures as a storyteller for the movie to work, I’d say that’s a failure on the part of the filmmaker. When you walk into a theatre you shouldn’t have to have done a thesis on the director to be able to engage with the movie. Most people do not, in fact. (i mean seriously, in America, we all know the director’s CV for any given flick?) And that’s a good thing, a valuable thing. Every film is a chance to do something new.
Also, as far as Jack goes, we’re supposed to pity his descent into madness–if he’s not falling from some kind of level of good man-ness, there is no point to the film, no pity and fear, no nothing.
Indeed. And that’s why the movie is awful, and the book is good.
I don’t buy that argument, especially as it doesn’t always fit. What’s the evil stare in 2001, the close-up of Hal’s red sensor? Doesn’t work. And the drill instructor is emphatically not the main character of FMJ; Joker is, and he’s not repulsive. Nor is Hal the protagonist of 2001; he’s the antagonist, and the protagonist is split among Moon-Watcher, Floyd, and Bowman, of whom the latter two are cold but lso not repulsive.a
Also Spartacus, not evil, and Barry Lyndon is not a psychopath, though the morals are iffy there.
So we’re left with Humbert Humbert–not a character Kubrick created, but note, one who in the book is very sympathetic, leading to that horror you speak of, the tension between POV and morality. And Jack, who I don’t agree is not meant to be sympathized with in his descent.
And Tom Cruise. I don’t see the pattern you see.
In A Clockwork Orange, it’s completely clear that Alex, the narrator/protagonist is a horrible human being. The question of the movie is “does even a horrible human being have a right to free will or is it acceptable for society to program away one’s right to free will if one is despicable enough?”
Since I find that question fascinating, I love A Clockwork Orange (the book and the movie), but I didn’t empathize with the reprehensible narrator. The audience is meant to be emotionally distant from him, and it works. If you want to empathize with the people you see on the screen, however, this is not the movie for you.
Her buying into his worldview also pissed me off. And their perfect life together read as so empty and grim that I couldn’t figure out why either of them wanted to be there.
I haven’t seen it in years and have erased as many of the details as possible from my brain. Mostly I remember being both bored and seethingly angry in the theater.
The woman-hating in film is getting more insidious and distasteful. People talked about Bridesmaids like it was some kind of girly buddy movie, but I was disgusted by the woman on woman hatred.
I’m terrified to watch it, lest I find something defensible in it. But since I think the odds on that are low and it’ll just make me irritable, I don’t bother.
Disclaimer: I love Kubrick.
That said, I wish he hadn’t done EWS; the best thing that can be said about that film is that the lighting is *marvelous*.
Aside from that, well, it managed to kick both my partner and I out of our suspensions of disbelief in the first few minutes, and went downhill from there.
I’m with you. I love so many of Kubrick’s films too but EWS just made me so angry.
My loathing for Eyes Wide Shut is deep and dark. You’re flipping out because your wife once had a fantasy? Seriously? Just bring your face over here so I can punch it thoroughly then sit you down in front of some Jerry Springer. Then we’ll talk. It just makes no sense as a premise, and a movie filled with unlikeable characters are really boring sex scenes can’t be based on such shaky legs.
So, yeah, I’m with you. Kubrick doesn’t much float my boat.
Yeah, this is what I mean. Also, that she totally buys into his stupid shit, that she’s done something wrong. And the movie as text buys that her having a dream (a DREAM. she couldn’t even control it!) is morally equivalent to his having sex with random strangers. Ugh. It’s a film that hates women, and reinforces its own shit internally until it’s like a moebius strip of misogyny.
The film doesn’t hate women. Tom Cruise’s character hates women and he’s a pathetic douchebag. We’re not supposed to love Tom Cruise. The audience is supposed to be repulsed by his rather childish reaction and his utterly pathetic reaction to a version of female sexuality that doesn’t center on him. So he runs around town trying to find some form of sexuality that he’s comfortable with and he’s repulsed at every turn.
Again, I think that’s a generous interpretation. I feel the text sides with Cruise, he is the hero and the POV we are invited into. Kidman has no identity and no story, she is merely his torturer.
That’s true. Female characters never really do well in Kubrick movies. Forget about the Bechdel Test – he usually fails at having one women with a character and a name.
I will argue that Alex is also the hero with the POV that we’re invited into and the tension between the POV and the revulsion we feel at that kind of character is what makes Kubrkick great.
Then again, I guess this goes to author intent. I think that if we’re supposed to love Tom Cruise (or Alex from Clockwork Orange) and we hate that character then the movie is a failure, but if we are invited into the POV and we feel revulsion on purpose then it can be a work of genius (or just an unpleasant movie going experience I guess)
Given how many young men have fully identified with Alex over the years and not been repulsed at all, I think we can say the success of that tension is debatable to say the least.
Young men are stupid. They also relate to Wolverine.
If you’re not endorsing your protagonist you ought to make damn sure you’re being clear about that.
Alex starts out the movie beating up an old man in a gutter. Jack Nicholson is on full Jack Nicholson creepy in the first scene. He starts Full Metal Jacket with a drill instructor yelling charming lines about ripping off heads and shitting down necks. Humbert Humbert is a child molester who kills Quilty in the first scene.
And every Kubrick movie has that evil stare into the camera where you are convinced that the guy is just waiting for the right moment to gut you like a fish.
By Eyes Wide Shut the “Directed by Stanley Kubrick” part of the movie is pretty much a giveaway that you’re going to be repulsed by the main character and that’s by design.
I think it’s a faulty argument that we should have known going in not to endorse Cruise because it was Kubrick–every text must stand on its own. But also, many people see it differently, and that shows it’s not all that clear.
Also the drill instructor is not the protagonist of FMJ! Matthew Modine is, and he’s a good person we are supposed to identify with.
Why the consistent, untenable axiom that every text must stand on its own? The very star system on which most Hollywood movies are based presumes that no text stands on its own, that we gain pleasure and insight from intertextuality. If I have a trigger that someone else doesn’t, and it shows up in a movie, it doesn’t invalidate either of our responses to that movie. Likewise, if someone (I’d argue most people) comes to a movie with knowledge of the director’s/actor’s previous work and how this work differs from, comments on, etc. that work, why is that a less valid response just because a text “must” stand on its own?
I’m not sure it is untenable. Especially in movies. If you must rely on audiences knowing and accepting your past failures as a storyteller for the movie to work, I’d say that’s a failure on the part of the filmmaker. When you walk into a theatre you shouldn’t have to have done a thesis on the director to be able to engage with the movie. Most people do not, in fact. (i mean seriously, in America, we all know the director’s CV for any given flick?) And that’s a good thing, a valuable thing. Every film is a chance to do something new.
Also, as far as Jack goes, we’re supposed to pity his descent into madness–if he’s not falling from some kind of level of good man-ness, there is no point to the film, no pity and fear, no nothing.
Indeed. And that’s why the movie is awful, and the book is good.
I don’t buy that argument, especially as it doesn’t always fit. What’s the evil stare in 2001, the close-up of Hal’s red sensor? Doesn’t work. And the drill instructor is emphatically not the main character of FMJ; Joker is, and he’s not repulsive. Nor is Hal the protagonist of 2001; he’s the antagonist, and the protagonist is split among Moon-Watcher, Floyd, and Bowman, of whom the latter two are cold but lso not repulsive.a
Also Spartacus, not evil, and Barry Lyndon is not a psychopath, though the morals are iffy there.
So we’re left with Humbert Humbert–not a character Kubrick created, but note, one who in the book is very sympathetic, leading to that horror you speak of, the tension between POV and morality. And Jack, who I don’t agree is not meant to be sympathized with in his descent.
And Tom Cruise. I don’t see the pattern you see.
In A Clockwork Orange, it’s completely clear that Alex, the narrator/protagonist is a horrible human being. The question of the movie is “does even a horrible human being have a right to free will or is it acceptable for society to program away one’s right to free will if one is despicable enough?”
Since I find that question fascinating, I love A Clockwork Orange (the book and the movie), but I didn’t empathize with the reprehensible narrator. The audience is meant to be emotionally distant from him, and it works. If you want to empathize with the people you see on the screen, however, this is not the movie for you.
Her buying into his worldview also pissed me off. And their perfect life together read as so empty and grim that I couldn’t figure out why either of them wanted to be there.
I haven’t seen it in years and have erased as many of the details as possible from my brain. Mostly I remember being both bored and seethingly angry in the theater.
The woman-hating in film is getting more insidious and distasteful. People talked about Bridesmaids like it was some kind of girly buddy movie, but I was disgusted by the woman on woman hatred.
I’m terrified to watch it, lest I find something defensible in it. But since I think the odds on that are low and it’ll just make me irritable, I don’t bother.
Disclaimer: I love Kubrick.
That said, I wish he hadn’t done EWS; the best thing that can be said about that film is that the lighting is *marvelous*.
Aside from that, well, it managed to kick both my partner and I out of our suspensions of disbelief in the first few minutes, and went downhill from there.
I’m with you. I love so many of Kubrick’s films too but EWS just made me so angry.
My loathing for Eyes Wide Shut is deep and dark. You’re flipping out because your wife once had a fantasy? Seriously? Just bring your face over here so I can punch it thoroughly then sit you down in front of some Jerry Springer. Then we’ll talk. It just makes no sense as a premise, and a movie filled with unlikeable characters are really boring sex scenes can’t be based on such shaky legs.
So, yeah, I’m with you. Kubrick doesn’t much float my boat.
Yeah, this is what I mean. Also, that she totally buys into his stupid shit, that she’s done something wrong. And the movie as text buys that her having a dream (a DREAM. she couldn’t even control it!) is morally equivalent to his having sex with random strangers. Ugh. It’s a film that hates women, and reinforces its own shit internally until it’s like a moebius strip of misogyny.
The film doesn’t hate women. Tom Cruise’s character hates women and he’s a pathetic douchebag. We’re not supposed to love Tom Cruise. The audience is supposed to be repulsed by his rather childish reaction and his utterly pathetic reaction to a version of female sexuality that doesn’t center on him. So he runs around town trying to find some form of sexuality that he’s comfortable with and he’s repulsed at every turn.
Again, I think that’s a generous interpretation. I feel the text sides with Cruise, he is the hero and the POV we are invited into. Kidman has no identity and no story, she is merely his torturer.
That’s true. Female characters never really do well in Kubrick movies. Forget about the Bechdel Test – he usually fails at having one women with a character and a name.
I will argue that Alex is also the hero with the POV that we’re invited into and the tension between the POV and the revulsion we feel at that kind of character is what makes Kubrkick great.
Then again, I guess this goes to author intent. I think that if we’re supposed to love Tom Cruise (or Alex from Clockwork Orange) and we hate that character then the movie is a failure, but if we are invited into the POV and we feel revulsion on purpose then it can be a work of genius (or just an unpleasant movie going experience I guess)
Given how many young men have fully identified with Alex over the years and not been repulsed at all, I think we can say the success of that tension is debatable to say the least.
Young men are stupid. They also relate to Wolverine.
If you’re not endorsing your protagonist you ought to make damn sure you’re being clear about that.
Alex starts out the movie beating up an old man in a gutter. Jack Nicholson is on full Jack Nicholson creepy in the first scene. He starts Full Metal Jacket with a drill instructor yelling charming lines about ripping off heads and shitting down necks. Humbert Humbert is a child molester who kills Quilty in the first scene.
And every Kubrick movie has that evil stare into the camera where you are convinced that the guy is just waiting for the right moment to gut you like a fish.
By Eyes Wide Shut the “Directed by Stanley Kubrick” part of the movie is pretty much a giveaway that you’re going to be repulsed by the main character and that’s by design.
I think it’s a faulty argument that we should have known going in not to endorse Cruise because it was Kubrick–every text must stand on its own. But also, many people see it differently, and that shows it’s not all that clear.
Also the drill instructor is not the protagonist of FMJ! Matthew Modine is, and he’s a good person we are supposed to identify with.
Why the consistent, untenable axiom that every text must stand on its own? The very star system on which most Hollywood movies are based presumes that no text stands on its own, that we gain pleasure and insight from intertextuality. If I have a trigger that someone else doesn’t, and it shows up in a movie, it doesn’t invalidate either of our responses to that movie. Likewise, if someone (I’d argue most people) comes to a movie with knowledge of the director’s/actor’s previous work and how this work differs from, comments on, etc. that work, why is that a less valid response just because a text “must” stand on its own?
I’m not sure it is untenable. Especially in movies. If you must rely on audiences knowing and accepting your past failures as a storyteller for the movie to work, I’d say that’s a failure on the part of the filmmaker. When you walk into a theatre you shouldn’t have to have done a thesis on the director to be able to engage with the movie. Most people do not, in fact. (i mean seriously, in America, we all know the director’s CV for any given flick?) And that’s a good thing, a valuable thing. Every film is a chance to do something new.
Also, as far as Jack goes, we’re supposed to pity his descent into madness–if he’s not falling from some kind of level of good man-ness, there is no point to the film, no pity and fear, no nothing.
Indeed. And that’s why the movie is awful, and the book is good.
I don’t buy that argument, especially as it doesn’t always fit. What’s the evil stare in 2001, the close-up of Hal’s red sensor? Doesn’t work. And the drill instructor is emphatically not the main character of FMJ; Joker is, and he’s not repulsive. Nor is Hal the protagonist of 2001; he’s the antagonist, and the protagonist is split among Moon-Watcher, Floyd, and Bowman, of whom the latter two are cold but lso not repulsive.a
Also Spartacus, not evil, and Barry Lyndon is not a psychopath, though the morals are iffy there.
So we’re left with Humbert Humbert–not a character Kubrick created, but note, one who in the book is very sympathetic, leading to that horror you speak of, the tension between POV and morality. And Jack, who I don’t agree is not meant to be sympathized with in his descent.
And Tom Cruise. I don’t see the pattern you see.
In A Clockwork Orange, it’s completely clear that Alex, the narrator/protagonist is a horrible human being. The question of the movie is “does even a horrible human being have a right to free will or is it acceptable for society to program away one’s right to free will if one is despicable enough?”
Since I find that question fascinating, I love A Clockwork Orange (the book and the movie), but I didn’t empathize with the reprehensible narrator. The audience is meant to be emotionally distant from him, and it works. If you want to empathize with the people you see on the screen, however, this is not the movie for you.
Her buying into his worldview also pissed me off. And their perfect life together read as so empty and grim that I couldn’t figure out why either of them wanted to be there.
I haven’t seen it in years and have erased as many of the details as possible from my brain. Mostly I remember being both bored and seethingly angry in the theater.
The woman-hating in film is getting more insidious and distasteful. People talked about Bridesmaids like it was some kind of girly buddy movie, but I was disgusted by the woman on woman hatred.
I’m terrified to watch it, lest I find something defensible in it. But since I think the odds on that are low and it’ll just make me irritable, I don’t bother.
Disclaimer: I love Kubrick.
That said, I wish he hadn’t done EWS; the best thing that can be said about that film is that the lighting is *marvelous*.
Aside from that, well, it managed to kick both my partner and I out of our suspensions of disbelief in the first few minutes, and went downhill from there.
I’m with you. I love so many of Kubrick’s films too but EWS just made me so angry.
Critical
User
supergee
Critical
User
supergee
Critical
User
supergee
Excellent. Blogging it.
Excellent. Blogging it.
Excellent. Blogging it.
Thank you. Now I understand everything about Kubrick, his movies, and the most rabid of his fanboy followers.
I like Kubrick, but there always seemed to be something missing in how I understood his movies. You just supplied the missing piece. I like some but not all of his movies.
I had a Studies In Film: Science Fiction course when I was in college that was full of Kubrick fanboys. we ended up having these fights over what made a science fiction story (film, novel, whatever) any good, and their point was that science fiction cannot be about people. it has to be about science only. otherwise it’s “space opera.” the point that the teacher, and I kept trying to hammer through for them is that if a story doesn’t teach us something about human life and has no value for human life, then what good is it?
They just wanted to watch 2001 (and also THX: 1138) over and over and over again.
I would argue that Eyes Wide Shut is the least science-fiction of his movies, but you’re right it’s a machine.
it all makes sense now.
Plenty of his movies aren’t SF, but none of them have anything to do with human life.
And given that geek fanboys often (not always, but the filmauteur kind are the worst, and don’t often have the mediating influence of social fandom) have not terribly much interest in human life, emotion, people, or women as it they live apart from machines, your experience (and mine when I was working as a film critic) is unsurprising.
FWIW:
I threw in there that if we were going to fight over science vs. human life (and in my opinion, social science is a science), that we should have watched The Handmaid’s Tale in that course.
My evil little motivation was that I wanted to make those geek fanboys sit through it.
My prof said we couldn’t watch it as part of the course because she personally found the movie too upsetting.
I am going to argue that the strength of Kubrick movies is that he doesn’t write movies filled with characters that you are supposed to relate to. He writes about overtly “masculine” characters that are destroyed by the limitations that they can never admit to having.
I can totally understand your point and share it. For example, when I watch the original British version of The Office, I watch Ricky Gervais as David Brent, using the workplace as his own personal performance space and shooting gallery, and think, “Jesus, that guy is such a hosebag,” and laugh at him, as opposed to identifying with him and laughing with him.
In the case of Kubrick films, you have a very sophisticated web of psychological work being done on the audience. I think the audience is drawn into the world and drawn into the protagonist, forced to identify with him, and not everyone is smart enough to say,”Gracious, what a statement about the heartless nature of society!” as opposed to, “derp, bowler hats are cool, I’m gonna go beat some lady with a stick now.”
>>not everyone is smart enough to say
In the case of Orange, it’s already pretty explicitly clear that the protagonist is a loathsome scumbag. If some percentage of the audience doesn’t get that (probably most often the young teenaged male part of the audience), is that Kubrick’s fault?
Thank you. Now I understand everything about Kubrick, his movies, and the most rabid of his fanboy followers.
I like Kubrick, but there always seemed to be something missing in how I understood his movies. You just supplied the missing piece. I like some but not all of his movies.
I had a Studies In Film: Science Fiction course when I was in college that was full of Kubrick fanboys. we ended up having these fights over what made a science fiction story (film, novel, whatever) any good, and their point was that science fiction cannot be about people. it has to be about science only. otherwise it’s “space opera.” the point that the teacher, and I kept trying to hammer through for them is that if a story doesn’t teach us something about human life and has no value for human life, then what good is it?
They just wanted to watch 2001 (and also THX: 1138) over and over and over again.
I would argue that Eyes Wide Shut is the least science-fiction of his movies, but you’re right it’s a machine.
it all makes sense now.
Plenty of his movies aren’t SF, but none of them have anything to do with human life.
And given that geek fanboys often (not always, but the filmauteur kind are the worst, and don’t often have the mediating influence of social fandom) have not terribly much interest in human life, emotion, people, or women as it they live apart from machines, your experience (and mine when I was working as a film critic) is unsurprising.
FWIW:
I threw in there that if we were going to fight over science vs. human life (and in my opinion, social science is a science), that we should have watched The Handmaid’s Tale in that course.
My evil little motivation was that I wanted to make those geek fanboys sit through it.
My prof said we couldn’t watch it as part of the course because she personally found the movie too upsetting.
I am going to argue that the strength of Kubrick movies is that he doesn’t write movies filled with characters that you are supposed to relate to. He writes about overtly “masculine” characters that are destroyed by the limitations that they can never admit to having.
I can totally understand your point and share it. For example, when I watch the original British version of The Office, I watch Ricky Gervais as David Brent, using the workplace as his own personal performance space and shooting gallery, and think, “Jesus, that guy is such a hosebag,” and laugh at him, as opposed to identifying with him and laughing with him.
In the case of Kubrick films, you have a very sophisticated web of psychological work being done on the audience. I think the audience is drawn into the world and drawn into the protagonist, forced to identify with him, and not everyone is smart enough to say,”Gracious, what a statement about the heartless nature of society!” as opposed to, “derp, bowler hats are cool, I’m gonna go beat some lady with a stick now.”
>>not everyone is smart enough to say
In the case of Orange, it’s already pretty explicitly clear that the protagonist is a loathsome scumbag. If some percentage of the audience doesn’t get that (probably most often the young teenaged male part of the audience), is that Kubrick’s fault?
Thank you. Now I understand everything about Kubrick, his movies, and the most rabid of his fanboy followers.
I like Kubrick, but there always seemed to be something missing in how I understood his movies. You just supplied the missing piece. I like some but not all of his movies.
I had a Studies In Film: Science Fiction course when I was in college that was full of Kubrick fanboys. we ended up having these fights over what made a science fiction story (film, novel, whatever) any good, and their point was that science fiction cannot be about people. it has to be about science only. otherwise it’s “space opera.” the point that the teacher, and I kept trying to hammer through for them is that if a story doesn’t teach us something about human life and has no value for human life, then what good is it?
They just wanted to watch 2001 (and also THX: 1138) over and over and over again.
I would argue that Eyes Wide Shut is the least science-fiction of his movies, but you’re right it’s a machine.
it all makes sense now.
Plenty of his movies aren’t SF, but none of them have anything to do with human life.
And given that geek fanboys often (not always, but the filmauteur kind are the worst, and don’t often have the mediating influence of social fandom) have not terribly much interest in human life, emotion, people, or women as it they live apart from machines, your experience (and mine when I was working as a film critic) is unsurprising.
FWIW:
I threw in there that if we were going to fight over science vs. human life (and in my opinion, social science is a science), that we should have watched The Handmaid’s Tale in that course.
My evil little motivation was that I wanted to make those geek fanboys sit through it.
My prof said we couldn’t watch it as part of the course because she personally found the movie too upsetting.
I am going to argue that the strength of Kubrick movies is that he doesn’t write movies filled with characters that you are supposed to relate to. He writes about overtly “masculine” characters that are destroyed by the limitations that they can never admit to having.
I can totally understand your point and share it. For example, when I watch the original British version of The Office, I watch Ricky Gervais as David Brent, using the workplace as his own personal performance space and shooting gallery, and think, “Jesus, that guy is such a hosebag,” and laugh at him, as opposed to identifying with him and laughing with him.
In the case of Kubrick films, you have a very sophisticated web of psychological work being done on the audience. I think the audience is drawn into the world and drawn into the protagonist, forced to identify with him, and not everyone is smart enough to say,”Gracious, what a statement about the heartless nature of society!” as opposed to, “derp, bowler hats are cool, I’m gonna go beat some lady with a stick now.”
>>not everyone is smart enough to say
In the case of Orange, it’s already pretty explicitly clear that the protagonist is a loathsome scumbag. If some percentage of the audience doesn’t get that (probably most often the young teenaged male part of the audience), is that Kubrick’s fault?
Actually pretty much every Kubrick character is a “misogynist douche-powered fuckmachines” and that’s why I like his movies. It’s like in the first season of Mad Men when all of the feminist issues were tied into Don Draper’s very limited construction of the masculine gender without any hope of reaching for some understanding of women that goes beyond child-like wives or the cool artist girlfriend that is never going to be anything but a side thing.
But the thing about it is that he doesn’t endorse the misogynist douche-powered fuckmachine (that is a really good term – I will be stealing it from you from now on) but explores the limitations of that ubermasculine mind set. His characters are Alpha Males living in a society that doesn’t need them and most of the time they are crushed by their alpha maleness. That “me love you long time” scene is the only way that they can relate to women (so the fact that a woman that looks very much like the prostitute was that one that killed pretty much all of them is a perfect example of their limitations).
That’s also why I like The Shining as a movie more than a book. The book is your typical Stephen King book about a nice guy who has a drinking problem and is slowly taken over by a hotel that literally possesses him (made explicit in the one scene where he dies and there’s only the hotel driving him). But in the movie you got Jack Nicholson coming into the hotel and being convinced (rather easily) to join the party where he gets to use racial slurs and lord his power over women and act like the master of the castle (his drinking toast is “White Man’s Burden”)
So I guess you do get Kubrick. You just aren’t interested in the depiction of Alpha Males acting badly (and then dying).
I think the idea that he doesn’t endorse it is incredibly generous–Eyes Wide Shut definitely endorses it, and you could make an argument for the rest of his oeuvre doing the same.
Mad Men moves on, for one thing. Kubrick never got to 2.0, which MM did fairly quickly. Also MM is more emotionally involving in its first ep than any Kubrick film. Partly because it lets women have stories, even when masculinity is the theme. It’s really one of the most impressive things about the show. Too often when a show/film is examining masculinity, it basically erases women from existence.
Yeah. That’s a definite fault.
I guess I love the fact that he makes movies about scary alpha male people so committed to their roles that they’ve lost all their humanity. There is something so horrifying and creepy about his characters and his invitation to make the audience be part of the POV that I could watch them repeatedly (well some of them repeatedly – The Shining is the major one with the reductivist interpretation of “don’t marry writers”) but I can see how someone can hate them.
But we agree that Mad Men is awesome (favorite scene is still the end of the third season when Roger asks Peggy to get him coffee and she says no.)
Actually pretty much every Kubrick character is a “misogynist douche-powered fuckmachines” and that’s why I like his movies. It’s like in the first season of Mad Men when all of the feminist issues were tied into Don Draper’s very limited construction of the masculine gender without any hope of reaching for some understanding of women that goes beyond child-like wives or the cool artist girlfriend that is never going to be anything but a side thing.
But the thing about it is that he doesn’t endorse the misogynist douche-powered fuckmachine (that is a really good term – I will be stealing it from you from now on) but explores the limitations of that ubermasculine mind set. His characters are Alpha Males living in a society that doesn’t need them and most of the time they are crushed by their alpha maleness. That “me love you long time” scene is the only way that they can relate to women (so the fact that a woman that looks very much like the prostitute was that one that killed pretty much all of them is a perfect example of their limitations).
That’s also why I like The Shining as a movie more than a book. The book is your typical Stephen King book about a nice guy who has a drinking problem and is slowly taken over by a hotel that literally possesses him (made explicit in the one scene where he dies and there’s only the hotel driving him). But in the movie you got Jack Nicholson coming into the hotel and being convinced (rather easily) to join the party where he gets to use racial slurs and lord his power over women and act like the master of the castle (his drinking toast is “White Man’s Burden”)
So I guess you do get Kubrick. You just aren’t interested in the depiction of Alpha Males acting badly (and then dying).
I think the idea that he doesn’t endorse it is incredibly generous–Eyes Wide Shut definitely endorses it, and you could make an argument for the rest of his oeuvre doing the same.
Mad Men moves on, for one thing. Kubrick never got to 2.0, which MM did fairly quickly. Also MM is more emotionally involving in its first ep than any Kubrick film. Partly because it lets women have stories, even when masculinity is the theme. It’s really one of the most impressive things about the show. Too often when a show/film is examining masculinity, it basically erases women from existence.
Yeah. That’s a definite fault.
I guess I love the fact that he makes movies about scary alpha male people so committed to their roles that they’ve lost all their humanity. There is something so horrifying and creepy about his characters and his invitation to make the audience be part of the POV that I could watch them repeatedly (well some of them repeatedly – The Shining is the major one with the reductivist interpretation of “don’t marry writers”) but I can see how someone can hate them.
But we agree that Mad Men is awesome (favorite scene is still the end of the third season when Roger asks Peggy to get him coffee and she says no.)
Actually pretty much every Kubrick character is a “misogynist douche-powered fuckmachines” and that’s why I like his movies. It’s like in the first season of Mad Men when all of the feminist issues were tied into Don Draper’s very limited construction of the masculine gender without any hope of reaching for some understanding of women that goes beyond child-like wives or the cool artist girlfriend that is never going to be anything but a side thing.
But the thing about it is that he doesn’t endorse the misogynist douche-powered fuckmachine (that is a really good term – I will be stealing it from you from now on) but explores the limitations of that ubermasculine mind set. His characters are Alpha Males living in a society that doesn’t need them and most of the time they are crushed by their alpha maleness. That “me love you long time” scene is the only way that they can relate to women (so the fact that a woman that looks very much like the prostitute was that one that killed pretty much all of them is a perfect example of their limitations).
That’s also why I like The Shining as a movie more than a book. The book is your typical Stephen King book about a nice guy who has a drinking problem and is slowly taken over by a hotel that literally possesses him (made explicit in the one scene where he dies and there’s only the hotel driving him). But in the movie you got Jack Nicholson coming into the hotel and being convinced (rather easily) to join the party where he gets to use racial slurs and lord his power over women and act like the master of the castle (his drinking toast is “White Man’s Burden”)
So I guess you do get Kubrick. You just aren’t interested in the depiction of Alpha Males acting badly (and then dying).
I think the idea that he doesn’t endorse it is incredibly generous–Eyes Wide Shut definitely endorses it, and you could make an argument for the rest of his oeuvre doing the same.
Mad Men moves on, for one thing. Kubrick never got to 2.0, which MM did fairly quickly. Also MM is more emotionally involving in its first ep than any Kubrick film. Partly because it lets women have stories, even when masculinity is the theme. It’s really one of the most impressive things about the show. Too often when a show/film is examining masculinity, it basically erases women from existence.
Yeah. That’s a definite fault.
I guess I love the fact that he makes movies about scary alpha male people so committed to their roles that they’ve lost all their humanity. There is something so horrifying and creepy about his characters and his invitation to make the audience be part of the POV that I could watch them repeatedly (well some of them repeatedly – The Shining is the major one with the reductivist interpretation of “don’t marry writers”) but I can see how someone can hate them.
But we agree that Mad Men is awesome (favorite scene is still the end of the third season when Roger asks Peggy to get him coffee and she says no.)
I suppose that makes sense…I liked most of his stuff simply because it was so goshdarn neat to look at (even The Shining had its moments), but as an adult, my thoughts are pretty much that his films all feel like those slightly uncomfortable moments of embarrassed silence when you’re talking with someone you don’t know at all, and the conversation’s just stopped dead…not enough to run away, but just enough to scratch your head and say “I really should be doing something else more productive right now.”
In its own way I like 2001, but I can definitely see a cadre of viewers standing up in the back row bellowing “GET ON WITH IT!” a la Python.
The slow pacing was always something that I had to get over when I was first watching his movies. It’s like they are meant to be seen more than once so the second time you can accept that they are slow and you just have to go with it.
Then I saw Tree of Life and realized that Terence Malick can make Kubrick look like Michael Bay.
I suppose that makes sense…I liked most of his stuff simply because it was so goshdarn neat to look at (even The Shining had its moments), but as an adult, my thoughts are pretty much that his films all feel like those slightly uncomfortable moments of embarrassed silence when you’re talking with someone you don’t know at all, and the conversation’s just stopped dead…not enough to run away, but just enough to scratch your head and say “I really should be doing something else more productive right now.”
In its own way I like 2001, but I can definitely see a cadre of viewers standing up in the back row bellowing “GET ON WITH IT!” a la Python.
The slow pacing was always something that I had to get over when I was first watching his movies. It’s like they are meant to be seen more than once so the second time you can accept that they are slow and you just have to go with it.
Then I saw Tree of Life and realized that Terence Malick can make Kubrick look like Michael Bay.
I suppose that makes sense…I liked most of his stuff simply because it was so goshdarn neat to look at (even The Shining had its moments), but as an adult, my thoughts are pretty much that his films all feel like those slightly uncomfortable moments of embarrassed silence when you’re talking with someone you don’t know at all, and the conversation’s just stopped dead…not enough to run away, but just enough to scratch your head and say “I really should be doing something else more productive right now.”
In its own way I like 2001, but I can definitely see a cadre of viewers standing up in the back row bellowing “GET ON WITH IT!” a la Python.
The slow pacing was always something that I had to get over when I was first watching his movies. It’s like they are meant to be seen more than once so the second time you can accept that they are slow and you just have to go with it.
Then I saw Tree of Life and realized that Terence Malick can make Kubrick look like Michael Bay.
I don’t love Eyes Wide Shut. I merely liked it when I saw it.
What I find, though, is that most people who hate that movie miss the point: Cruise’s character is not /supposed/ to be likeable. The whole point of the movie is that he’s a loathsome idiot.
And I don’t a. think that is the point and b. think that’s a good point for a movie.
I maintain you wouldn’t like it if you saw it now.
I don’t love Eyes Wide Shut. I merely liked it when I saw it.
What I find, though, is that most people who hate that movie miss the point: Cruise’s character is not /supposed/ to be likeable. The whole point of the movie is that he’s a loathsome idiot.
And I don’t a. think that is the point and b. think that’s a good point for a movie.
I maintain you wouldn’t like it if you saw it now.
I don’t love Eyes Wide Shut. I merely liked it when I saw it.
What I find, though, is that most people who hate that movie miss the point: Cruise’s character is not /supposed/ to be likeable. The whole point of the movie is that he’s a loathsome idiot.
And I don’t a. think that is the point and b. think that’s a good point for a movie.
I maintain you wouldn’t like it if you saw it now.
I like Kubrick, because his movies have this glacial feel to them you can’t get anywhere else. And I think it’s a certain kind of genius, but not the kind I’d really be proud to show to my friends, because what’s being immortalized is a kind of thought process that’s utterly remote from human interaction.
I mean, they’re all windows to other worlds. That’s good. That’s a worthy thing. But it’s not a world I want to live in, or even to particularly encourage.
I’m not really a glacial girl, I guess.
Now, see, someone mentioned Malick, above. Malick is glacially paced.
I adore Malick.
I loathe Kubrick. *Glacial* isn’t his problem. Malick is glacial only in terms of pace; Kubrick in both slow and cold, and oh, the combination makes me want to claw my eyes out.
Kubrick in both slow and cold, and oh, the combination makes me want to claw my eyes out.
So what you’re saying is that Tarkovksy’s long tracking shot of the winter-sports sequence in Solaris was an hommage/tribute to Kubrick?
Cold and clinical, like an alien looking down on a human ant farm.
Did you care for Into the Void? I’d certainly describe it as glacial, but somehow it worked for me.
I like Kubrick, because his movies have this glacial feel to them you can’t get anywhere else. And I think it’s a certain kind of genius, but not the kind I’d really be proud to show to my friends, because what’s being immortalized is a kind of thought process that’s utterly remote from human interaction.
I mean, they’re all windows to other worlds. That’s good. That’s a worthy thing. But it’s not a world I want to live in, or even to particularly encourage.
I’m not really a glacial girl, I guess.
Now, see, someone mentioned Malick, above. Malick is glacially paced.
I adore Malick.
I loathe Kubrick. *Glacial* isn’t his problem. Malick is glacial only in terms of pace; Kubrick in both slow and cold, and oh, the combination makes me want to claw my eyes out.
Kubrick in both slow and cold, and oh, the combination makes me want to claw my eyes out.
So what you’re saying is that Tarkovksy’s long tracking shot of the winter-sports sequence in Solaris was an hommage/tribute to Kubrick?
Cold and clinical, like an alien looking down on a human ant farm.
Did you care for Into the Void? I’d certainly describe it as glacial, but somehow it worked for me.
I like Kubrick, because his movies have this glacial feel to them you can’t get anywhere else. And I think it’s a certain kind of genius, but not the kind I’d really be proud to show to my friends, because what’s being immortalized is a kind of thought process that’s utterly remote from human interaction.
I mean, they’re all windows to other worlds. That’s good. That’s a worthy thing. But it’s not a world I want to live in, or even to particularly encourage.
I’m not really a glacial girl, I guess.
Now, see, someone mentioned Malick, above. Malick is glacially paced.
I adore Malick.
I loathe Kubrick. *Glacial* isn’t his problem. Malick is glacial only in terms of pace; Kubrick in both slow and cold, and oh, the combination makes me want to claw my eyes out.
Kubrick in both slow and cold, and oh, the combination makes me want to claw my eyes out.
So what you’re saying is that Tarkovksy’s long tracking shot of the winter-sports sequence in Solaris was an hommage/tribute to Kubrick?
Cold and clinical, like an alien looking down on a human ant farm.
Did you care for Into the Void? I’d certainly describe it as glacial, but somehow it worked for me.
Dr. Strangelove is unique, and uniquely hilarious. Barry Lyndon, I think, is also something pretty special. It’s the one role in which Ryan O’Neal’s plank-of-wood non-acting was ever coaxed into the service of something worthwhile.
I think you’re dead-on about Full Metal Jacket. All the points and most of the quality are crammed into the first half.
The first half of Full Metal Jacket is probably one of my favorite films.
It’s almosta pity that Barry Lyndon is so gorgeously shot; the social satire tends to be overlooked.
Dr. Strangelove is unique, and uniquely hilarious. Barry Lyndon, I think, is also something pretty special. It’s the one role in which Ryan O’Neal’s plank-of-wood non-acting was ever coaxed into the service of something worthwhile.
I think you’re dead-on about Full Metal Jacket. All the points and most of the quality are crammed into the first half.
The first half of Full Metal Jacket is probably one of my favorite films.
It’s almosta pity that Barry Lyndon is so gorgeously shot; the social satire tends to be overlooked.
Dr. Strangelove is unique, and uniquely hilarious. Barry Lyndon, I think, is also something pretty special. It’s the one role in which Ryan O’Neal’s plank-of-wood non-acting was ever coaxed into the service of something worthwhile.
I think you’re dead-on about Full Metal Jacket. All the points and most of the quality are crammed into the first half.
The first half of Full Metal Jacket is probably one of my favorite films.
It’s almosta pity that Barry Lyndon is so gorgeously shot; the social satire tends to be overlooked.
OH MY GOD THANK YOU! I can’t count how many arguments I’ve had, usually with men, about how much I hate Kubrick. And usually all they can say is “But.. but… Clockwork Orange!” It feels so good to have someone else say that he sucks.
His adaptation of Lolita was a crime against literature.
Ugh. I don’t think I even have the words to express the depth of my loathing for Kubrick…ESPECIALLY “Clockwork Orange”. You’re definitely not alone on that one.
I loved Clockwork Orange as a teenager, though parts of it were obviously distasteful, but as I grew older the awesomeness of ultra-violence and drugged milk waned.
Eyes Wide Shut similarly, once you get over boobies! and classy sex stuff!
I have to say it’s the look and pacing of his movies that I like most (reminds me of Ridley Scott, ooo new movie from him next year..).
In fact.. I think I like Kubrick best when he is not addressing gender at all (no men or no women around, but I think he only does no women) a la 2001 and boot camp in full metal jacket.
I don’t think 2001 or FMJ are doing no gender so much as just ignoring women to focus on masculinity totally. That’s still doing gender.
Thisthisthis.
OH MY GOD THANK YOU! I can’t count how many arguments I’ve had, usually with men, about how much I hate Kubrick. And usually all they can say is “But.. but… Clockwork Orange!” It feels so good to have someone else say that he sucks.
His adaptation of Lolita was a crime against literature.
Ugh. I don’t think I even have the words to express the depth of my loathing for Kubrick…ESPECIALLY “Clockwork Orange”. You’re definitely not alone on that one.
I loved Clockwork Orange as a teenager, though parts of it were obviously distasteful, but as I grew older the awesomeness of ultra-violence and drugged milk waned.
Eyes Wide Shut similarly, once you get over boobies! and classy sex stuff!
I have to say it’s the look and pacing of his movies that I like most (reminds me of Ridley Scott, ooo new movie from him next year..).
In fact.. I think I like Kubrick best when he is not addressing gender at all (no men or no women around, but I think he only does no women) a la 2001 and boot camp in full metal jacket.
I don’t think 2001 or FMJ are doing no gender so much as just ignoring women to focus on masculinity totally. That’s still doing gender.
Thisthisthis.
OH MY GOD THANK YOU! I can’t count how many arguments I’ve had, usually with men, about how much I hate Kubrick. And usually all they can say is “But.. but… Clockwork Orange!” It feels so good to have someone else say that he sucks.
His adaptation of Lolita was a crime against literature.
Ugh. I don’t think I even have the words to express the depth of my loathing for Kubrick…ESPECIALLY “Clockwork Orange”. You’re definitely not alone on that one.
I loved Clockwork Orange as a teenager, though parts of it were obviously distasteful, but as I grew older the awesomeness of ultra-violence and drugged milk waned.
Eyes Wide Shut similarly, once you get over boobies! and classy sex stuff!
I have to say it’s the look and pacing of his movies that I like most (reminds me of Ridley Scott, ooo new movie from him next year..).
In fact.. I think I like Kubrick best when he is not addressing gender at all (no men or no women around, but I think he only does no women) a la 2001 and boot camp in full metal jacket.
I don’t think 2001 or FMJ are doing no gender so much as just ignoring women to focus on masculinity totally. That’s still doing gender.
Thisthisthis.
Satire is definitely one of Kubrick’s strongest suits; I’ve always said that while The Shining is mostly hopeless as either a horror film or portrait of a dysfunctional family, it’s an A++ black comedy about writer’s block.
Ahhaha. This is the only comment on this entire thread that could possibly convince me to go watch it again.
ffffffffffffffffff
Then my work is complete
Satire is definitely one of Kubrick’s strongest suits; I’ve always said that while The Shining is mostly hopeless as either a horror film or portrait of a dysfunctional family, it’s an A++ black comedy about writer’s block.
Ahhaha. This is the only comment on this entire thread that could possibly convince me to go watch it again.
ffffffffffffffffff
Then my work is complete
Satire is definitely one of Kubrick’s strongest suits; I’ve always said that while The Shining is mostly hopeless as either a horror film or portrait of a dysfunctional family, it’s an A++ black comedy about writer’s block.
Ahhaha. This is the only comment on this entire thread that could possibly convince me to go watch it again.
ffffffffffffffffff
Then my work is complete
No title
User
coyotegoth
No title
User
coyotegoth
No title
User
coyotegoth
I find your take on Kubrick baffling, but, yes, to each her own.
I find your take on Kubrick baffling, but, yes, to each her own.
I find your take on Kubrick baffling, but, yes, to each her own.
Ever hear of the movie Color Me Kubrick, where John Malkovich portrays a man who in real life went around impersonating Stanley Kubrick and conned people into giving him money, booze, sexual favors, etc. in early 90′s England? It’s a very quirky, entertaining, if also disturbing movie. I recommend it whether you’re a Kubrick fan or not. (I don’t have strong feelings about him one way or the other, but I haven’t seen any of his movies in awhile, besides Lolita a couple years ago.) Here’s a link to it on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376543/
Ever hear of the movie Color Me Kubrick, where John Malkovich portrays a man who in real life went around impersonating Stanley Kubrick and conned people into giving him money, booze, sexual favors, etc. in early 90′s England? It’s a very quirky, entertaining, if also disturbing movie. I recommend it whether you’re a Kubrick fan or not. (I don’t have strong feelings about him one way or the other, but I haven’t seen any of his movies in awhile, besides Lolita a couple years ago.) Here’s a link to it on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376543/
Ever hear of the movie Color Me Kubrick, where John Malkovich portrays a man who in real life went around impersonating Stanley Kubrick and conned people into giving him money, booze, sexual favors, etc. in early 90′s England? It’s a very quirky, entertaining, if also disturbing movie. I recommend it whether you’re a Kubrick fan or not. (I don’t have strong feelings about him one way or the other, but I haven’t seen any of his movies in awhile, besides Lolita a couple years ago.) Here’s a link to it on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376543/
Eyes Wide Shut is actually a very crafty and deep film, with a redemptive, positive ending. It’s a meditation on fidelity. Like most of Kubrick’s films, it’s not meant to be representative of the real world. The “text” is about 10% of the whole picture of any given Kubrick film — subext maybe 40%, and technique the rest.
Really? I can’t believe anyone finds the ending positive or redemptive in any way. Interesting.
Well, sure — he went through his dark night of the soul, got over his issues, and she accepted his contrition.
She accepted his worldview and judgment of her and went back to their life together as though she had done something equivalent wrong, and being a total cipher of a character, existed only to accept his contrition. It’s not what I would call redemptive.
I suppose you could look at it that way, if you wanted to. As I recall, she was angry…but forgiving. A quality to be admired.
Eyes Wide Shut is actually a very crafty and deep film, with a redemptive, positive ending. It’s a meditation on fidelity. Like most of Kubrick’s films, it’s not meant to be representative of the real world. The “text” is about 10% of the whole picture of any given Kubrick film — subext maybe 40%, and technique the rest.
Really? I can’t believe anyone finds the ending positive or redemptive in any way. Interesting.
Well, sure — he went through his dark night of the soul, got over his issues, and she accepted his contrition.
She accepted his worldview and judgment of her and went back to their life together as though she had done something equivalent wrong, and being a total cipher of a character, existed only to accept his contrition. It’s not what I would call redemptive.
I suppose you could look at it that way, if you wanted to. As I recall, she was angry…but forgiving. A quality to be admired.
Eyes Wide Shut is actually a very crafty and deep film, with a redemptive, positive ending. It’s a meditation on fidelity. Like most of Kubrick’s films, it’s not meant to be representative of the real world. The “text” is about 10% of the whole picture of any given Kubrick film — subext maybe 40%, and technique the rest.
Really? I can’t believe anyone finds the ending positive or redemptive in any way. Interesting.
Well, sure — he went through his dark night of the soul, got over his issues, and she accepted his contrition.
She accepted his worldview and judgment of her and went back to their life together as though she had done something equivalent wrong, and being a total cipher of a character, existed only to accept his contrition. It’s not what I would call redemptive.
I suppose you could look at it that way, if you wanted to. As I recall, she was angry…but forgiving. A quality to be admired.
I remember a lot of Kubrick fans disliking EYES WIDE SHUT.
I thought everybody hated that movie.
I remember a lot of Kubrick fans disliking EYES WIDE SHUT.
I thought everybody hated that movie.
I remember a lot of Kubrick fans disliking EYES WIDE SHUT.
I thought everybody hated that movie.
All valid criticism. I love Kubrick, but mainly what I love about him is his ability to create unforgettable images. His visual style has become part of the language of film. But in terms of storytelling, yes, all that you said.
All valid criticism. I love Kubrick, but mainly what I love about him is his ability to create unforgettable images. His visual style has become part of the language of film. But in terms of storytelling, yes, all that you said.
All valid criticism. I love Kubrick, but mainly what I love about him is his ability to create unforgettable images. His visual style has become part of the language of film. But in terms of storytelling, yes, all that you said.
I’m in agreement with Marlowe about Eyes Wide Shut. You’re supposed to immediately dislike Cruise’s character. The whole point of the movie is that his disgust relating to sexuality originates within himself and, no matter where he goes, there he is. That said, I don’t particularly care for the film because it has some serious pacing problems and isn’t terribly interesting. But Kubrick died before he had finished editing the film, so it’s hard to tell what of that is Kubrick and what is the editing house trying to create a finished product. I can see what Kubrick was trying to do with it, but he didn’t quite make it, IMO.
Also, largely, in many of Kubrick’s films, the characters aren’t intended to be directly relatable; it’s the (often absurd) situation they’re in that’s supposed to be the focus. Think of the situation as the main character in the film, instead of the POV character. I admit that, from a narrative perspective, this is kind of bizarre, but films are a visual medium, which makes them different beasts than books, and they shouldn’t necessarily be judged the same way.
I like Kubrick as a director because the story or characters are not necessarily the only things to take away from his films. Anyone who has studied filmcraft can tell you what a master he is at the technical aspects of his work. Do I like everything he’s done? No, because everyone hits a sour note now and then. But I can’t argue that films like The Shining, Dr. Strangelove, and 2001 aren’t masterpieces.
So, I’m afraid I will have to respectfully disagree.
I have to second this. Kubrick’s movies aren’t about people in any sort of realist-character-study way. His most sympathetic characters, such as the poor trio of scapegoats in PATHS OF GLORY or “Gomer Pyle” in FULL METAL JACKET are usually doomed to meet cruel ends at the hands of merciless bureaucracies — and often times even his victims of injustice aren’t *that* sympathetic. Humanity comes off overall as a cancer that needlessly infects the world.
That said, misogyny is definitely a fair cop in the films he did that actually feature women in any sort of role. (Except maybe for BARRY LYNDON, which unfolds like a series of stunning oil paintings.)
However, I’m someone who liked EYES WIDE SHUT. Not because the characters were likeable, or even interesting, but because of its recursive, paranoid, fever dream quality.
2001 and DR. STRANGELOVE I can watch over and over again without getting bored. I know this cuz I’ve done it…
I’m in agreement with Marlowe about Eyes Wide Shut. You’re supposed to immediately dislike Cruise’s character. The whole point of the movie is that his disgust relating to sexuality originates within himself and, no matter where he goes, there he is. That said, I don’t particularly care for the film because it has some serious pacing problems and isn’t terribly interesting. But Kubrick died before he had finished editing the film, so it’s hard to tell what of that is Kubrick and what is the editing house trying to create a finished product. I can see what Kubrick was trying to do with it, but he didn’t quite make it, IMO.
Also, largely, in many of Kubrick’s films, the characters aren’t intended to be directly relatable; it’s the (often absurd) situation they’re in that’s supposed to be the focus. Think of the situation as the main character in the film, instead of the POV character. I admit that, from a narrative perspective, this is kind of bizarre, but films are a visual medium, which makes them different beasts than books, and they shouldn’t necessarily be judged the same way.
I like Kubrick as a director because the story or characters are not necessarily the only things to take away from his films. Anyone who has studied filmcraft can tell you what a master he is at the technical aspects of his work. Do I like everything he’s done? No, because everyone hits a sour note now and then. But I can’t argue that films like The Shining, Dr. Strangelove, and 2001 aren’t masterpieces.
So, I’m afraid I will have to respectfully disagree.
I have to second this. Kubrick’s movies aren’t about people in any sort of realist-character-study way. His most sympathetic characters, such as the poor trio of scapegoats in PATHS OF GLORY or “Gomer Pyle” in FULL METAL JACKET are usually doomed to meet cruel ends at the hands of merciless bureaucracies — and often times even his victims of injustice aren’t *that* sympathetic. Humanity comes off overall as a cancer that needlessly infects the world.
That said, misogyny is definitely a fair cop in the films he did that actually feature women in any sort of role. (Except maybe for BARRY LYNDON, which unfolds like a series of stunning oil paintings.)
However, I’m someone who liked EYES WIDE SHUT. Not because the characters were likeable, or even interesting, but because of its recursive, paranoid, fever dream quality.
2001 and DR. STRANGELOVE I can watch over and over again without getting bored. I know this cuz I’ve done it…
I’m in agreement with Marlowe about Eyes Wide Shut. You’re supposed to immediately dislike Cruise’s character. The whole point of the movie is that his disgust relating to sexuality originates within himself and, no matter where he goes, there he is. That said, I don’t particularly care for the film because it has some serious pacing problems and isn’t terribly interesting. But Kubrick died before he had finished editing the film, so it’s hard to tell what of that is Kubrick and what is the editing house trying to create a finished product. I can see what Kubrick was trying to do with it, but he didn’t quite make it, IMO.
Also, largely, in many of Kubrick’s films, the characters aren’t intended to be directly relatable; it’s the (often absurd) situation they’re in that’s supposed to be the focus. Think of the situation as the main character in the film, instead of the POV character. I admit that, from a narrative perspective, this is kind of bizarre, but films are a visual medium, which makes them different beasts than books, and they shouldn’t necessarily be judged the same way.
I like Kubrick as a director because the story or characters are not necessarily the only things to take away from his films. Anyone who has studied filmcraft can tell you what a master he is at the technical aspects of his work. Do I like everything he’s done? No, because everyone hits a sour note now and then. But I can’t argue that films like The Shining, Dr. Strangelove, and 2001 aren’t masterpieces.
So, I’m afraid I will have to respectfully disagree.
I have to second this. Kubrick’s movies aren’t about people in any sort of realist-character-study way. His most sympathetic characters, such as the poor trio of scapegoats in PATHS OF GLORY or “Gomer Pyle” in FULL METAL JACKET are usually doomed to meet cruel ends at the hands of merciless bureaucracies — and often times even his victims of injustice aren’t *that* sympathetic. Humanity comes off overall as a cancer that needlessly infects the world.
That said, misogyny is definitely a fair cop in the films he did that actually feature women in any sort of role. (Except maybe for BARRY LYNDON, which unfolds like a series of stunning oil paintings.)
However, I’m someone who liked EYES WIDE SHUT. Not because the characters were likeable, or even interesting, but because of its recursive, paranoid, fever dream quality.
2001 and DR. STRANGELOVE I can watch over and over again without getting bored. I know this cuz I’ve done it…
The only Kubrick film I actually like is Paths of Glory. That movie works for me, but I can’t say the same for any other Kubrick film I’ve seen.
The only Kubrick film I actually like is Paths of Glory. That movie works for me, but I can’t say the same for any other Kubrick film I’ve seen.
The only Kubrick film I actually like is Paths of Glory. That movie works for me, but I can’t say the same for any other Kubrick film I’ve seen.
I feel kind of bad about saying this since so many of his films are considered classics, but the only one I think I have ever seen is 2001. Of the rest only Dr. Strangelove has had any attraction for me, but I am still not sure ‘d want to watch it.
I feel kind of bad about saying this since so many of his films are considered classics, but the only one I think I have ever seen is 2001. Of the rest only Dr. Strangelove has had any attraction for me, but I am still not sure ‘d want to watch it.
I feel kind of bad about saying this since so many of his films are considered classics, but the only one I think I have ever seen is 2001. Of the rest only Dr. Strangelove has had any attraction for me, but I am still not sure ‘d want to watch it.
Hmm. I always thought it was axiomatic that Kubrick was rubbish. Dude might have made a decent cinematographer, as he had a good eye for light, but his direction was always flat and his writing was essentially owl poop. I was so happy when he finally died and I could stop hearing about his idiotic movies from his legions of zombie fans (who always seem to be guys – usually a Certain Kind of guy).
Hmm. I always thought it was axiomatic that Kubrick was rubbish. Dude might have made a decent cinematographer, as he had a good eye for light, but his direction was always flat and his writing was essentially owl poop. I was so happy when he finally died and I could stop hearing about his idiotic movies from his legions of zombie fans (who always seem to be guys – usually a Certain Kind of guy).
Hmm. I always thought it was axiomatic that Kubrick was rubbish. Dude might have made a decent cinematographer, as he had a good eye for light, but his direction was always flat and his writing was essentially owl poop. I was so happy when he finally died and I could stop hearing about his idiotic movies from his legions of zombie fans (who always seem to be guys – usually a Certain Kind of guy).
I still love 2001, but I, too, loathed Eyes Wide Shut. What garbage. And y’know what, on top of all the previous garbage, the final scene, that was supposed to make it all Mean Something, I guess, had the two idiots “grownups” standing in the middle of an insanely busy department store AT CHRISTMASTIME and they proceeded to COMPLETELY FORGET THEY HAD A KID. That catapulted me RIGHT out of the movie (wish it had happened at the beginning, I could’ve left and missed the whole thing) because all I could think was, Why aren’t they watching their kid?
I liked The Shining, too. I considered it a completely separate work than the book, so I was fine with it.
I still love 2001, but I, too, loathed Eyes Wide Shut. What garbage. And y’know what, on top of all the previous garbage, the final scene, that was supposed to make it all Mean Something, I guess, had the two idiots “grownups” standing in the middle of an insanely busy department store AT CHRISTMASTIME and they proceeded to COMPLETELY FORGET THEY HAD A KID. That catapulted me RIGHT out of the movie (wish it had happened at the beginning, I could’ve left and missed the whole thing) because all I could think was, Why aren’t they watching their kid?
I liked The Shining, too. I considered it a completely separate work than the book, so I was fine with it.
I still love 2001, but I, too, loathed Eyes Wide Shut. What garbage. And y’know what, on top of all the previous garbage, the final scene, that was supposed to make it all Mean Something, I guess, had the two idiots “grownups” standing in the middle of an insanely busy department store AT CHRISTMASTIME and they proceeded to COMPLETELY FORGET THEY HAD A KID. That catapulted me RIGHT out of the movie (wish it had happened at the beginning, I could’ve left and missed the whole thing) because all I could think was, Why aren’t they watching their kid?
I liked The Shining, too. I considered it a completely separate work than the book, so I was fine with it.
I don’t hate Kubrick, but I suspect that not being around people who love him unconditionally (after my first boyfriend, but that was a short-term thing anyway) has helped with that. I was kind of okay with The Shining, though I thought that most of the scariest parts of the book were left out of the movie. I mostly remember being bored and/or falling asleep during his movies, except for Full Metal Jacket, which I perversely watched back-to-back with Apocalypse Now on the 4th of July when I was 16. … I don’t really remember much of the movie, but I felt kind of rattled after watching both of those.
However, reading your post made me realize that the strongest positive feeling I tend to get when watching Kubrick movies for the first time is, “Oh, now I know where that particular cultural reference comes from. Okay.”
My deep feeling of MEH tinged with complete dislike for a film is for Lost in Translation, which I hated utterly. I hated that movie because it was completely successful at what I think Coppola wanted to convey, which was being bored and miserable and feeling culture shock. Unfortunately, I don’t have much patience for movies in which my only emotional resonance is that I am also bored and miserable.
I like Tarantino, but he’s sort of hit or miss for me. I love Reservoir Dogs and I enjoyed Pulp Fiction. I loved Kill Bill Vol.2, but hated Vol.1 (though, part of that was that the film quality was bad and I misinterpreted the first scene, thus spending the entire movie feeling sick to my stomach.) I could only watch about 45 minutes of Inglorius Basterds (or however it’s spelled) because I just couldn’t handle the density of racial slurs in the dialogue.
I’m right there with you! Never been a fan of Kubrick’s style, which is too detached and clinical. The Shining I can be alright with, if I think of it as independent from the book, but Jack N is already a tense crazyman-in-waiting at the beginning and so it never feels like he has far to go into completely unhinged once he gets to the hotel.
And I couldn’t believe I wasted several hours watching LiT. I know it causes people to think or say “Oh, but you Just Don’t Get It, It’s So Deep, And Here’s How”, but I don’t care. If I can’t be engaged by any of the characters in a movie, then the movie’s not for me.
As for Tarantino, I don’t like him and don’t expect that to ever change.
My relationship with LiT is complex, because I was living in Japan and being miserable there while my husband abandoned me when it came out. So it brought up a lot of crap for me and made me cry and then I went home and didn’t even have Bill Murray to make me feel alive. Now I watch it and think those two are assholes who don’t even try to engage with Japanese culture, but still, the early 20s lostness and need for connection, well, connect with me and who I was then.
Also everyone I knew online emailed me when it came out to say I UNDERSTAND YOUR LIFE NOW. Yuck.
I don’t hate Kubrick, but I suspect that not being around people who love him unconditionally (after my first boyfriend, but that was a short-term thing anyway) has helped with that. I was kind of okay with The Shining, though I thought that most of the scariest parts of the book were left out of the movie. I mostly remember being bored and/or falling asleep during his movies, except for Full Metal Jacket, which I perversely watched back-to-back with Apocalypse Now on the 4th of July when I was 16. … I don’t really remember much of the movie, but I felt kind of rattled after watching both of those.
However, reading your post made me realize that the strongest positive feeling I tend to get when watching Kubrick movies for the first time is, “Oh, now I know where that particular cultural reference comes from. Okay.”
My deep feeling of MEH tinged with complete dislike for a film is for Lost in Translation, which I hated utterly. I hated that movie because it was completely successful at what I think Coppola wanted to convey, which was being bored and miserable and feeling culture shock. Unfortunately, I don’t have much patience for movies in which my only emotional resonance is that I am also bored and miserable.
I like Tarantino, but he’s sort of hit or miss for me. I love Reservoir Dogs and I enjoyed Pulp Fiction. I loved Kill Bill Vol.2, but hated Vol.1 (though, part of that was that the film quality was bad and I misinterpreted the first scene, thus spending the entire movie feeling sick to my stomach.) I could only watch about 45 minutes of Inglorius Basterds (or however it’s spelled) because I just couldn’t handle the density of racial slurs in the dialogue.
I’m right there with you! Never been a fan of Kubrick’s style, which is too detached and clinical. The Shining I can be alright with, if I think of it as independent from the book, but Jack N is already a tense crazyman-in-waiting at the beginning and so it never feels like he has far to go into completely unhinged once he gets to the hotel.
And I couldn’t believe I wasted several hours watching LiT. I know it causes people to think or say “Oh, but you Just Don’t Get It, It’s So Deep, And Here’s How”, but I don’t care. If I can’t be engaged by any of the characters in a movie, then the movie’s not for me.
As for Tarantino, I don’t like him and don’t expect that to ever change.
My relationship with LiT is complex, because I was living in Japan and being miserable there while my husband abandoned me when it came out. So it brought up a lot of crap for me and made me cry and then I went home and didn’t even have Bill Murray to make me feel alive. Now I watch it and think those two are assholes who don’t even try to engage with Japanese culture, but still, the early 20s lostness and need for connection, well, connect with me and who I was then.
Also everyone I knew online emailed me when it came out to say I UNDERSTAND YOUR LIFE NOW. Yuck.
I don’t hate Kubrick, but I suspect that not being around people who love him unconditionally (after my first boyfriend, but that was a short-term thing anyway) has helped with that. I was kind of okay with The Shining, though I thought that most of the scariest parts of the book were left out of the movie. I mostly remember being bored and/or falling asleep during his movies, except for Full Metal Jacket, which I perversely watched back-to-back with Apocalypse Now on the 4th of July when I was 16. … I don’t really remember much of the movie, but I felt kind of rattled after watching both of those.
However, reading your post made me realize that the strongest positive feeling I tend to get when watching Kubrick movies for the first time is, “Oh, now I know where that particular cultural reference comes from. Okay.”
My deep feeling of MEH tinged with complete dislike for a film is for Lost in Translation, which I hated utterly. I hated that movie because it was completely successful at what I think Coppola wanted to convey, which was being bored and miserable and feeling culture shock. Unfortunately, I don’t have much patience for movies in which my only emotional resonance is that I am also bored and miserable.
I like Tarantino, but he’s sort of hit or miss for me. I love Reservoir Dogs and I enjoyed Pulp Fiction. I loved Kill Bill Vol.2, but hated Vol.1 (though, part of that was that the film quality was bad and I misinterpreted the first scene, thus spending the entire movie feeling sick to my stomach.) I could only watch about 45 minutes of Inglorius Basterds (or however it’s spelled) because I just couldn’t handle the density of racial slurs in the dialogue.
I’m right there with you! Never been a fan of Kubrick’s style, which is too detached and clinical. The Shining I can be alright with, if I think of it as independent from the book, but Jack N is already a tense crazyman-in-waiting at the beginning and so it never feels like he has far to go into completely unhinged once he gets to the hotel.
And I couldn’t believe I wasted several hours watching LiT. I know it causes people to think or say “Oh, but you Just Don’t Get It, It’s So Deep, And Here’s How”, but I don’t care. If I can’t be engaged by any of the characters in a movie, then the movie’s not for me.
As for Tarantino, I don’t like him and don’t expect that to ever change.
My relationship with LiT is complex, because I was living in Japan and being miserable there while my husband abandoned me when it came out. So it brought up a lot of crap for me and made me cry and then I went home and didn’t even have Bill Murray to make me feel alive. Now I watch it and think those two are assholes who don’t even try to engage with Japanese culture, but still, the early 20s lostness and need for connection, well, connect with me and who I was then.
Also everyone I knew online emailed me when it came out to say I UNDERSTAND YOUR LIFE NOW. Yuck.
BTW, based on my personal experience the first half of Full Metal Jacket is a documentary. And a pretty mild one, at that.
How do you feel about Paths of Glory (his WWI film)?
I haven’t seen it.
BTW, based on my personal experience the first half of Full Metal Jacket is a documentary. And a pretty mild one, at that.
How do you feel about Paths of Glory (his WWI film)?
I haven’t seen it.
BTW, based on my personal experience the first half of Full Metal Jacket is a documentary. And a pretty mild one, at that.
How do you feel about Paths of Glory (his WWI film)?
I haven’t seen it.
“douche-powered fuckmachines”
Holy hell, thank you for these words.
I vow to use this insult in the very near future!!
“douche-powered fuckmachines”
Holy hell, thank you for these words.
I vow to use this insult in the very near future!!
“douche-powered fuckmachines”
Holy hell, thank you for these words.
I vow to use this insult in the very near future!!
I guess I liked the first half of Full Metal Jacket, which is basically an anthology movie with only two flicks in it, one of which is a tight, amazing short story. The other is entirely forgettable
Yes yes and yes.
I guess I liked the first half of Full Metal Jacket, which is basically an anthology movie with only two flicks in it, one of which is a tight, amazing short story. The other is entirely forgettable
Yes yes and yes.
I guess I liked the first half of Full Metal Jacket, which is basically an anthology movie with only two flicks in it, one of which is a tight, amazing short story. The other is entirely forgettable
Yes yes and yes.
You know, if anyone had ever asked me, “What scene in a Kubrick film was most effective on an emotional level?” I would have answered, with no hesitation, “The death of HAL in 2001.” Now I know why.
You know, if anyone had ever asked me, “What scene in a Kubrick film was most effective on an emotional level?” I would have answered, with no hesitation, “The death of HAL in 2001.” Now I know why.
You know, if anyone had ever asked me, “What scene in a Kubrick film was most effective on an emotional level?” I would have answered, with no hesitation, “The death of HAL in 2001.” Now I know why.
So _that’s_ why I don’t like them! I haven’t been able to put my finger on it, but both Kubrick and Tarantino feels like aliens to me (or rather, their movies does) but at least Tarantino feels like a concious twist on real people (and are, at times, funny). I’ll take this to heart.
So _that’s_ why I don’t like them! I haven’t been able to put my finger on it, but both Kubrick and Tarantino feels like aliens to me (or rather, their movies does) but at least Tarantino feels like a concious twist on real people (and are, at times, funny). I’ll take this to heart.
So _that’s_ why I don’t like them! I haven’t been able to put my finger on it, but both Kubrick and Tarantino feels like aliens to me (or rather, their movies does) but at least Tarantino feels like a concious twist on real people (and are, at times, funny). I’ll take this to heart.
So _that’s_ why I don’t like them! I haven’t been able to put my finger on it, but both Kubrick and Tarantino feels like aliens to me (or rather, their movies does) but at least Tarantino feels like a concious twist on real people (and are, at times, funny). I’ll take this to heart.
So _that’s_ why I don’t like them! I haven’t been able to put my finger on it, but both Kubrick and Tarantino feels like aliens to me (or rather, their movies does) but at least Tarantino feels like a concious twist on real people (and are, at times, funny). I’ll take this to heart.
So _that’s_ why I don’t like them! I haven’t been able to put my finger on it, but both Kubrick and Tarantino feels like aliens to me (or rather, their movies does) but at least Tarantino feels like a concious twist on real people (and are, at times, funny). I’ll take this to heart.
Thank you for expressing expressing so eloquently *exactly* how I feel re: Kubrik.
Thank you for expressing expressing so eloquently *exactly* how I feel re: Kubrik.
Thank you for expressing expressing so eloquently *exactly* how I feel re: Kubrik.
I’m a fan of Kubrick, perhaps not as big as in my teens, but I can’t really argue. His films are generally cold, detached, mechanical, which I think it partially the point, though it ultimately works against him. And there really is not much female presence; his films are usually about worlds inhabited by men or from a male perspective.
Have you seen much Tarkovsky or Malick? Both are often lazily compared to Kubrick, but I think you would find the humanness that is missing from Kubrick in their work. In some ways Solaris is a reaction to 2001.
I’m a fan of Kubrick, perhaps not as big as in my teens, but I can’t really argue. His films are generally cold, detached, mechanical, which I think it partially the point, though it ultimately works against him. And there really is not much female presence; his films are usually about worlds inhabited by men or from a male perspective.
Have you seen much Tarkovsky or Malick? Both are often lazily compared to Kubrick, but I think you would find the humanness that is missing from Kubrick in their work. In some ways Solaris is a reaction to 2001.
I’m a fan of Kubrick, perhaps not as big as in my teens, but I can’t really argue. His films are generally cold, detached, mechanical, which I think it partially the point, though it ultimately works against him. And there really is not much female presence; his films are usually about worlds inhabited by men or from a male perspective.
Have you seen much Tarkovsky or Malick? Both are often lazily compared to Kubrick, but I think you would find the humanness that is missing from Kubrick in their work. In some ways Solaris is a reaction to 2001.