Kubrick didn't deserve his only oscar

[shiftwork2]

I saw Eyes Wide Shut at the cinema and the best bit was when a patron offered to put a bloke's head through the wall if he didn't stop noisily sucking his sweets.  Sutton was quite a tense town.  It's an odd one.  I'm struck on re-watching quite how stagey it is, the New York street scenes are so obviously done on a set and this gives a weird fake feel which may have been deliberate, I don't know.  Big time ham performances out of the leads.  Some memorable set pieces such as Tom's visit to the costume shop.  Overall though, it's a bit of a wet fart.

Listy

1. 2001
2. A Clockwork Orange
3. Barry Lyndon
4. Full Metal Jacket
5. Lolita
6. Run For Your Wife
7. Spartacus
8. Dr Strangelove
9. Eyes Wide Shut

[Steven]

'Fact' is a dangerously strong word there isn't it? I have my suspicions with a few of them but I wouldn't dare say they were facts.

It's a strong word that 'debunkers' use all the time, the fact is a lot of the photographs and video were provably not taken on the moon via the erroneous optics. There's millions of problems with them, not to mention the retouching done on a lot of the photos, then there's the obvious fakes like the Gemini 10 Michael Collins spacewalk photo being a training exercise where the background was blacked out. Thanks to modern technology a lot of them under computer colour imaging are showing blacked out cranes and lighting rigs.

I'm not arsed arguing about it, I don't care about convincing anybody. Every debunking site or program I've seen has used misinformation and outright lies to supposedly debunk the stuff, the point is they can't without cheating.

[Old Nehamkin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKedyQQkZQ&feature=youtu.be&t=0m59s

[biggytitbo]

Wish they would do it again, just for THE CRAIC

They destroyed all the blueprints and nobody can remember how they did it.

[Noodle Lizard]

The footage the studio edited out is another mystifying part, I don't know if it was inconsequential but doing it after his death was a bit of a dishonourable thing to do.

I've read one or two books on Kubrick, as well as a fair bit specifically about 'Eyes Wide Shut', and have no recollection of this.  Is that true?  From what I understand, Kubrick delivered the final cut to the studio a few days before he died and the only changes that were made were some rubbish censoring of nudity[nb]literally putting digital objects in front of genitals like an Austin Powers film[/nb] for the US theatrical release to avoid an NC-17.

I think I've read the entire screenplay (a while ago, mind) and don't remember it being significantly different from the final film.

[kidsick5000]

Strangelove is my favorite thing Kubrick did, but a monkey could direct Peter Sellers and George C. Scott and end up with something fantastic.

I think Strangelove is brilliant, but you sell it short. Sellers and Scott were notoriously difficult (Look at Sellers' back catalogue in particular. Huge amounts of crappy films).

Clockwork Orange is still the one that falls flat for me, possibly because it looks too much like a British 70s movie. It's just shy of Robin Asqwith turning up.

I got into Eyes Wide Shut eventually. But it initially felt like one of those films all directors[nb]Don't ask me to name them, it's a sweeping generalisation[/nb] with long enough careers decide to make. The one where they realise, "Hang on, I can put lots of nudey ladies in this and hang around with them all day"

[Steven]

I've read one or two books on Kubrick, as well as a fair bit specifically about 'Eyes Wide Shut', and have no recollection of this.  Is that true?

I've admitted it's a conspiracy theory, but you've said yourself it was edited after his death by the studio. Whether this was just for general licensing reasons or some strange idea of editing out more explosive stuff from the narrative I don't know. I'd generally go with it being not being explosive stuff that the studio just didn't like after Kubrick died, but considering the subject of the movie, there's masses of conspiratorial material to make of studio edits, as with Kubrick being an auteur control-freak and non-sanctioned changes after his death are going to be looked upon as a bad move, but with the brainwashing and satanic cult plot it's going to exacerbate matters. I still think someone like Kubrick would consider Cruise an odd choice, obviously the studio would love it, but I feel considering the cult/brainwashing ideas in the film he may have used scientologies own poster boy for his own reasons, and yes I do believe Kubrick just didn't talk much about things so it imbues everything he does with such ambiguity it's wildly misinterpreted.

I did read interviews with the co-writer years ago and you'd imagine he'd mention some major changes in plot, but the problem is Kubrick generally took material and tweaked it just enough, usually more visually with his cinematography than script-wise, you could twist it to fit any weird theory you could wish for. He did really die 666 days before 2001 though, that's a weird coincidence. You can read biggy's weird thread which I obviously missed at the time, or other shite like this or that.

[Noodle Lizard]

I've admitted it's a conspiracy theory, but you've said yourself it was edited after his death by the studio. Whether this was just for general licensing reasons or some strange idea of editing out more explosive stuff from the narrative I don't know.

Well not really.  I said they optically censored the orgy sequence to get an R-rating for the theatrical release (an MPAA/money thing more than their personal preference), but the runtime and narrative wasn't changed at all.  He was contractually obliged to deliver an R-rated film, so blocking out a bit of nudity isn't exactly much of a proverbial piss on his grave.

All that stuff about protecting the Hollywood elites is clearly total bollocks.  Warner Bros would have overseen the production from script to edit and if they had had a problem with any of it (which they wouldn't) they would have nipped it in the bud or, more pertinently, not given him the millions to make it in the first place.

He did really die 666 days before 2001 though, that's a weird coincidence.

Why?

[Puce Moment]

It's a coincidence that it features a couple of things that conspiracy nobheads like to draw upon for their tediously nutty bullshit.

[Steven]

All that stuff about protecting the Hollywood elites is clearly total bollocks.  Warner Bros would have overseen the production from script to edit and if they had had a problem with any of it (which they wouldn't) they would have nipped it in the bud or, more pertinently, not given him the millions to make it in the first place.

There's a bunch of supposition here. I don't discount that the film was basically finished but there was some minor editing and changes going on when Kubrick died, which the studio completed, but there's enough ambiguity there to imbue the notion of him being murdered for the explosive revelations supposedly given in the film. I don't accept the theory but the film IS about high society sex cults and brainwashing isn't it? I haven't seen it for years but that's what I came away with the impression of, I know it's based on an older novel but Kubrick seemed to use material to tell a different story, whether by implication or through his cinematography, sound and symbolism.

Why?

He did the famous film 2001 and then died 666 days before the dawn of it? It's just an interesting coincidence, and I'm amazed somebody noticed that frankly. 666 is an occult number, six hundred threescore and six is the number code of a man as described in John's Revelations so I'm not sure exactly what kind of point that an be twisted to fit in with Kubrick, it's most likely gamatria but people will go crazy making note of whenever they can insert it into a subject matter.

[Ignatius_S]

I think Strangelove is brilliant, but you sell it short. Sellers and Scott were notoriously difficult (Look at Sellers' back catalogue in particular. Huge amounts of crappy films)....

Sellers did become difficult and his behaviour most erratic, but that only became evident after Dr Strangelove.  Similarly, up to the time of Dr Strangelove, he had an enviable CV – not a single bad film (well, maybe The Millionairess). There are one or two, such as The Waltz of the Toreadors that I believe are criminally underrated. 

However, Sterling Heyden was a very difficult actor to work with. Interesting to this, he, Scott and Sellers had all worked with Kubrick before.

[Ignatius_S]

... I know it's based on an older novel but Kubrick seemed to used material to tell a different story, whether by implication or through his cinematography, audio and symbolism....

From various accounts of people who have made comparisons, that's not the impression I've gathered – particulary from what friends who had read the original story before the adaptation have said.   

[Noodle Lizard]

There's a bunch of supposition here. I don't discount that the film was basically finished but there was some minor editing and changes going on when Kubrick died, which the studio completed

Like I said, the film as we see it is pretty much identical to the script save for a few minor alterations in dialogue etc.

but there's enough ambiguity there to imbue the notion of him being murdered for the explosive revelations supposedly given in the film.

Not really.  He was a 70-year-old fat man who was notoriously stressed and work-obsessed and died of a heart attack in his sleep.  Also, why would "they" kill him and then release the film anyway?

I don't accept the theory but the film IS about high society sex cults and brainwashing isn't it? I haven't seen it for years but that's what I came away with the impression of, I know it's based on an older novel but Kubrick seemed to use material to tell a different story, whether by implication or through his cinematography, sound and symbolism.

Not really.  The sex cult makes up a pretty small part of it.  It's far more about infidelity and guilt and paranoia.

He did the famous film 2001 and then died 666 days before the dawn of it? It's just an interesting coincidence, and I'm amazed somebody noticed that frankly. 666 is an occult number, six hundred threescore and six is the number code of a man as described in John's Revelations so I'm not sure exactly what kind of point that an be twisted to fit in with Kubrick, it's most likely gamatria but people will go crazy making note of whenever they can insert it into a subject matter.

Oh.  Actually, now I think of it ... that kind of does tie in with this.  Kubrick had one more film he intended to produce after 'Eyes Wide Shut' and before 'A.I.' ... only a short film, but something a lot of people have been curious about.  They gave the script file out on a USB stick at the Kubrick Exhibit at LACMA a year or two back.  Here it is:

[Steven]

I really don't understand what you're arguing about, I haven't been advocating any kind of overarching conspiracy theory about it. I simply said, personally, I didn't understand the Tom Cruise casting, but after seeing the film it may have been a dig at Scientology considering the subject matter of what literally happens in the film - High Society cult involvement and brain washing - that's what came from my initial interpretation from watching it.

Though I had heard reports that the film was re-edited after his death and pointed out it was probably inconsequential to the plot but gave room for a conspiracy theory to grow about the whole thing. I think we both agree there was some editing, I wasn't saying it was my position some 'explosive narrative' was cut I was forwarding what the actual conspiracy theory is. Someone asked a question about the re-cutting so I iterated some of the weirder points I've read about it out re: 666 days before 2001, I've never said this is my position but you keep asking questions about it so I tried to describe what it was about. I'm perplexed why describing the theory means I'm somehow advocating it.

[Noodle Lizard]

I think we both agree there was some editing

We don't, there's nothing to suggest that.  Like I said, the only thing that was changed for the theatrical release (and only the US release at that) was some nudity censoring to get an R-rating.  Nothing was cut, trimmed or re-arranged, they literally just digitally inserted some objects (usually people) to obscure some of the sex and nudity in the orgy montage.  That's not really re-editing and it only applied to the US theatrical release anyway.

I'm perplexed why describing the theory means I'm somehow advocating it.

It doesn't, I'm just responding to the theories themselves.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I love Kubrick's films, but pretty much for how they look more than anything. His characters come across as pretty two dimensional, and as a result there's little emotional connection to the material. I think this probably counted against him a lot with the Academy (and some film critics like Ebert in general).

I actually think Cruise and Kidman did very well with some dialogue that doesn't convince as well on paper.

[Noodle Lizard]

I love Kubrick's films, but pretty much for how they look more than anything. His characters come across as pretty two dimensional, and as a result there's little emotional connection to the material. I think this probably counted against him a lot with the Academy (and some film critics like Ebert in general).

I think the Academy just didn't like him as well.  It's so much to do with Hollywood politics, and we know he pissed off a fair few people.  He also distanced himself from Hollywood (geographically and otherwise) from the 70s onwards and didn't do the requisite schmoozing and backslapping.  I suspect Terry Gilliam will never be nominated for or win a directing Oscar either.

[Steven]

We don't, there's nothing to suggest that.  Like I said, the only thing that was changed for the theatrical release (and only the US release at that) was some nudity censoring to get an R-rating.  Nothing was cut, trimmed or re-arranged, they literally just digitally inserted some objects (usually people) to obscure some of the sex and nudity in the orgy montage.  That's not really re-editing and it only applied to the US theatrical release anyway.

Did you read the page I pasted in before from a site full of Kubrick-heads? They're arguing that he was still editing on the night he died, and a lot of the sound, music and voiceovers was done after his death. Whether that's true or not I don't know but the point is it's up for debate, chase up their assertions if you're so inclined, I scarce care, I was just demonstrating the initial suspicions which bred the conspiratorial shenanigans.

There's enough windmill jousting for all with these guys? Or these?

[thugler]

Fat bastard.

2001 is full of occult illuminated philsophy and symbols

Any proof that this was intentional and not people reading things into every little thing?

[Steven]

Any proof that this was intentional and not people reading things into every little thing?

There's the rub, it's difficult to argue about whether something is valid from one interpretation to another. But Arthur C Clarke definitely had allusions in this area, and it's based on his The Sentinel, the other follow-up books he did also follow a very occult Luciferian philosophy.

The opening of 2001 is about the birth of intelligence, the divine spark in man, where the apes learn from touching the black monolith which you can argue represents Lucifer or the idea of the intellect, and begin to use elements from their environment to their advantage - a bone into a weapon, similar to the Satan seducing Eve with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it leads into the first murder where one ape kills another which also touches upon the Garden of Eden allegory with Cain & Abel. The apes start to feast on meat, Cain was a vegetarian who ploughed the field but Abel shepherded the sheep but God showed favour to Abel's sacrifices so Cain slew him, this could be an allegorical tale about learning to murder others and eat their meat.

Intelligence was also the downfall of Adam & Eve, as they began to perceive with an intellect they fell from innocence and were banished from paradise. The evolution of the intellect goes from the apes manipulating bones or stones into the space-age, the ships and the planetary stuff all has an occult angle but it's laborious process to get through. Through intellect, man has escaped not just the garden but the earth and are on the verge of the power of becoming as Gods. There's the transformation into the space foetus that you can read as becoming a new species or a God-like being. But the sequels Clarke wrote - I think they did film two movie sequels based on them - all followed a similar Luciferian philosophy, turning Jupiter into a new sun etc. As for the symbols I'd have to sit down and watch it again to remember a lot of them, it was the one film as a kid I could never get through without falling asleep, and I've always been an insomniac.

[great_badir]

I think they did film two movie sequels based on them

They only did 2010 (hugely under-rated, in my opinion - not a patch on 2001 of course, but it's a completely different type of film).  2061 got as far as early pre-production but was quickly canned, and I don't think there's enough money in the world to make 3001 as a live action film, even with CGI as advanced as it is now.

Just as well, though, cos 2061 and 3001 (the books) suck massive balls, and 3001 is made even worse by how completely ridiculous it is.  Almost like someone other than Clarke wrote it.

[Steven]

Yes, that's the one with Rob Scheider? It's not bad, I haven't read the book but the movie plot is very similar to an old conspiracy theory the Lucifer Project, I don't know if Clarke was inspired by it or the other way around.

[biggytitbo]

2010 is hugely underrated I agree. I'd argue it's a better film than 2001 overall, more organic, more real. Even the 'realistic' scenes in 2001 feel horribly dated and quaint now. Whereas 2010 stands up perfectly well despite being 30 years old rather than 46.

[Steven]

Elements of the plot have been copied countless times, lost contact with previous mission, send another crew to investigate, they come upon a derelict, something sinister takes over and infests the new crew. Event Horizon, Sunshine, The Abyss, The Thing etc etc Though I don't know how entirely original that is, there's old Twilight Zone episodes with a similar theme, the one with the knocking sound coming from the sunken submarine Thirty Fathom Grave.

[great_badir]

Yes, that's the one with Rob Scheider?

(sorry - I couldn't resist)

[Steven]

(sorry - I couldn't resist)

Hah, sorry about that, I was listening to something yesterday which was mentioning Rob and done a brain-queef.

[great_badir]

Good thing you done that brain-queef - I would genuinely pay to see that, despite the first Deuce Bigelow being, literally, the only Schneider film I like.

[Steven]

I know he was parodied in South Park for doing shit movies but the only experience I have of him is I remember me and a friend sneaking into a cinema underage to watch the Judge Dredd film and thinking who's this fucking awful wise-guy side-kick character, he's fucking dreadful. Not that the rest of the film was any better, but he was the worst part. I've not seen anything else with him so he's always whiny annoying Stallone sidekick bloke.

[great_badir]

Minor addition for the kind karma giver:

[Steven]

Alright, you're outstaying your welcome now. I know how that feels.