Kubrick didn't deserve his only oscar

[Johnny Textface]

I vaguely remember, just after the release of Eyes Wide Shut, there being a particular shot in the bathroom where you could clearly see the reflection of a crew member. 'Kubrick would be turning in his grave' etc.. I presume that got edited out or tidied up at some point post death.
Unless I just dreamt it.

[great_badir]

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.

South Park was right, and that Dredd is terrible.

The first Deuce Bigelow, however, IS a good comedy film in its own right, and even Schneider is uncharacteristically likeable in it.

Also, whils the sequel is dreadful, it does feature this amazing moment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6S_ODNUiCI (that small "plop" hasn't been added by the YouTube poster - it's actually in the film).  But, now you've seen that bit, you have no need to watch the rest of it.

[great_badir]

I vaguely remember, just after the release of Eyes Wide Shut, that there was a particular shot in the bathroom where you could clearly see the reflection of a crew member. 'Kubrick would be turning in his grave' etc.. I presume that got city or tidied up at some point?

Quite a lot of Eyes Wide Shut is VERY lax, though.  Considering he did such a good job of turning London docklands into Vietnam, Eyes was a pretty pathetic attempt, by anyone's standards, let alone Kubrick's, at disguising various places in England as New York.  It's not just that either, but many of the performances are really stilted and awkward, seeming like first takes belying the epic shoot, and the tone of it is all over the fucking place.  Worse, from a technical stand point, it feels like it's mostly comprised of second unit stuff.

Even though I think The Shining is his most over-rated (in fact only over-rated) film, Eyes Wide Shut is by far the worst and, probably, the only legitimately out and out shit film he made.  Basically, take out the schamltz, and Spielberg made a much better final Kubrick film than Kubrick did.

[Steven]

Regarding Eyes Wide Shut, R Lee Ermey claimed Kubrick didn't like it. But people thought regarding AI, that it was ruined by Spielberg, and upon first watching I imagined the film should have ended at the mermaid section, I thought that was a touching end to a mess of a film, a lot of people claimed Speilberg added the Aliens ending which was just crap and he does have some weird obsession with shoving Aliens into everything, but it seems Kubrick had that ending designed all along?

[El Unicornio, mang]

Quite a lot of Eyes Wide Shut is VERY lax, though.  Considering he did such a good job of turning London docklands into Vietnam, Eyes was a pretty pathetic attempt, by anyone's standards, let alone Kubrick's, at disguising various places in England as New York. 

Worth noting, though, that most of the street scenes in Eyes Wide Shut weren't shot in the streets of London, they were built on a soundstage. The scenes which were shot in London, I thought were fine. These are the spots, and they could easily be places in New York http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/e/eyeswide.html#.VAo0G_ldWJQ

Scorsese commented (in the excellent Kubruck: A Life in Pictures documentary) that he thought it was perhaps intentional, as the film is all about deception and false identity, and also as the film often feels like a dream so it's more of a dream version of New York (the streets in the film don't even exist in NYC). I'm not sure about all that, the Boxes documentary shows how much effort he put into the smallest details in the film in pre-production by taking thousands of pictures of doorways in London, but that they then decided to shoot on a stage, so I think perhaps they didn't have as much time left to make it look authentic.

I don't think it's the worst though, there's a scene near the end of Lolita where it's clearly a British street/house, and no effort made to disguise it.

[great_badir]

Regarding Eyes Wide Shut, R Lee Ermey claimed Kubrick didn't like it. But people thought regarding AI, that it was ruined by Spielberg, and upon first watching I imagined the film should have ended at the mermaid section, I thought that was a touching end to a mess of a film, a lot of people claimed Speilberg added the Aliens ending which was just crap and he does have some weird obsession with shoving Aliens into everything, but it seems Kubrick had that ending designed all along?

Most reports seem to suggest that either Ermey was talking bollocks, misunderstood, or took something out of context and over simplified it, because most others have said the complete opposite (i.e. that Kubrick was genuinely proud of it).

As for A.I., well they're not aliens of course, they are the robots of the distant future, but yeah - exactly as Kubrick had intended.  I think the "problem" is two-fold - people automatically assumed they were aliens because it was Spielberg, but also Spielberg's naturally less-harsh tone gave the whole thing a bit more of a.......wishy-washy (?) feel to it.

[great_badir]

Worth noting, though, that the night street scenes in Eyes Wide Shut weren't shot in the streets of London, they were built on a soundstage. The scenes which were shot in London, I thought were fine. These are the spots, and they could easily be places in New York http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/e/eyeswide.html#.VAo0G_ldWJQ

Scorsese commented (in the excellent Kubruck: A Life in Pictures documentary) that he thought it was perhaps intentional, as the film is all about deception and false identity, and also as the film often feels like a dream so it's more of a dream version of New York (the streets in the film don't even exist in NYC). I'm not sure about all that, the Boxes documentary shows how much effort he put into the smallest details in the film in pre-production by taking thousands of pictures of doorways in London, but that they then decided to shoot on a stage, so I think perhaps they didn't have as much time left to make it look authentic.

I don't think it's the worst though, there's a scene near the end of Lolita where it's clearly a British street/house, and no effort made to disguise it.

I also don't buy that - much as I like and admire Scorsese, it's clearly an apologist's attempt to justify the faults.

I know exactly which bit of Lolita you are referring to and you're right - I had totally forgotten about that.  Lolita, however, is a great film, and the rest of it doesn't suffer from the same problem.

[Ty Lookwell]

I always felt a lot of the luciferian interpretations of "2001" were more to do with Clarke and his fascination with the subject. (He was a rather high degree freemason from what I understand. Not that the two are always connected.) I mean, he makes it pretty blatant : the new star that is created at the end of "2010" is actually named "Lucifer" (possibly just in the books, not sure if that made it's way into the movie) and "Childhood's End" has some very, umm, fallen angel-looking aliens (as well as a singular, gigantic "eye" that rules over them) "aiding" humanity out of it's religions and silly old ways over a long period of time until they can show themselves without any hysteria and usher in the next evolutionary phase. (

Spoiler alert

which was all the lovely little children becoming almost completely inactive and psychically connected together, forming some sort of hive mind, from what I remember. Not at all like today.

[close]

)

As for the actual topic of this thread: it always seemed to me the Kubrick wasn't too interested in pursuing awards, or even showing up to the ones he did win, while he was alive so it matters a heck of a lot less which ones he got or didn't get now that he's dead.

[Steven]

This is the problem with Kubrick, never talking about his work publicly and using such strange uses of visuals it gives such a chasm for interpretation to inject pretty much anything you would care to do. Such an eye for detail so any mistakes such as the copter shadow at the beginning of the Shining can be interpreted as deliberate. I'm going to call him tea-leaves Kubrick from now on. That shows him.

I always felt a lot of the luciferian interpretations of "2001" were more to do with Clarke and his fascination with the subject. (He was a rather high degree freemason from what I understand. Not that the two are always connected.) I mean, he makes it pretty blatant : the new star that is created at the end of "2010" is actually named "Lucifer" (possibly just in the books, not sure if that made it's way into the movie) and "Childhood's End" has some very, umm, fallen angel-looking aliens (as well as a singular, gigantic "eye" that rules over them) "aiding" humanity out of it's religions and silly old ways over a long period of time until they can show themselves without any hysteria and usher in the next evolutionary phase. (

Spoiler alert

which was all the lovely little children becoming almost completely inactive and psychically connected together, forming some sort of hive mind, from what I remember. Not at all like today.

[close]

)

Also a bit suspect in the kiddy-fiddler department wasn't he? I suspected he was a high up Freemason but had no confirmation, it reads in the philosophy of 2001 and its sequels. But regarding the Luciferian philosophy is that Satan/Lucifer didn't lie to Adam & Eve in the bible when he said 'your eyes will be opened, you will become as Gods' the notion is through intellect man will ascend to the power of a God using technology and maybe genetics to become immortal which we surely are on our way to crafting that reality.

[great_badir]

Also a bit suspect in the kiddy-fiddler department wasn't he?

Perhaps rumoured more than suspect, but yeah - some have suggested that that's the real reason he moved to Sri Lanka, although there appears to be little to no evidence (or even hearsay) to back that up and, more likely, the combination of his hobbies (astronomy and diving) and his homosexuality being far better suited there than in Minehead.

[Steven]

Heh, I remember enjoying his paranormal series as a kid so I'll give him that, but I remember watching him walking along a beach during aforesaid programme and my mother opining "You can tell by the walk he's a bit.. y'know.. gay.." Words or wisdom, Lloyd, words of wisdom.

[Steven]

Even though I think The Shining is his most over-rated (in fact only over-rated) film, Eyes Wide Shut is by far the worst and, probably, the only legitimately out and out shit film he made.

Is it overrated though? It wasn't lauded especially at release, it took a long time for that notion to become apparent. Is it mostly Nicholson's manic persona or Kubrick's strange cinematography? I think it's a great horror film, but obviously King hated it, but seeing his television series version couldn't come close to creating a similar level of uncertain malevolence, he didn't like how much it had been changed but I think it did all work for the better, just a creepy movie that takes multiple viewings to get more enjoyment out of. I love films that take time to appreciate, and this is one I feel, which is why I think it took a bit of time to gain traction. I will always watch it when it is on.

Most reports seem to suggest that either Ermey was talking bollocks, misunderstood, or took something out of context and over simplified it, because most others have said the complete opposite (i.e. that Kubrick was genuinely proud of it).

But it can't it be the case people have different views whether discussed privately rather than more publicly? We're dealing with differing people with differing motives venting Kubrick's thoughts through a filter, I don't know what Ermey's motives would be other than some quick bit of publicity?

     

[Steven]

Perhaps rumoured more than suspect, but yeah - some have suggested that that's the real reason he moved to Sri Lanka, although there appears to be little to no evidence (or even hearsay) to back that up and, more likely, the combination of his hobbies (astronomy and diving) and his homosexuality being far better suited there than in Minehead.

Yeah because he couldn't do those hobbies in any other country in the world? I've known about the Sri Lanka stuff for years but considering the current climate it's noteworthy that he was another VIP there were scandalous rumours about but nothing ever seriously done, and rubbing shoulders with Royals again etc. Not to denigrate the guy's work, but you have to sometimes separate the art from the artist.

[great_badir]

Is it overrated though? It wasn't lauded especially at release, it took a long time for that notion to become apparent. Is it mostly Nicholson's manic persona or Kubrick's strange cinematography? I think it's a great horror film, but obviously King hated it, but seeing his television series version couldn't come close to creating a similar level of uncertain malevolence, he didn't like how much it had been changed but I think it did all work for the better, just a creepy movie that takes multiple viewings to get more enjoyment out of. I love films that take time to appreciate, and this is one I feel, which is why I think it took a bit of time to gain traction. I will always watch it when it is on.

I have many problems with the film, not least the casting of Jack Nicholson.  I've seen it countless times, but it's still the same old plodding piece of over-acted guff it was the first time I saw it.  It's like Kubrick decided that the (required) theatricals of Barry Lyndon were also suitable for a microscopically cast psychological horror set in an empty hotel in the middle of a modern-day American winter.  It just doesn't work for me on any level - it doesn't engage me, I care nothing for any of the characters (perhaps save old Scatman), it doesn't scare me.  Nothing.

But it can't it be the case people have different views whether discussed privately rather than more publicly? We're dealing with differing people with differing motives venting Kubrick's thoughts through a filter, I don't know what Ermey's motives would be other than some quick bit of publicity?

That's why I've given the benefit of the doubt and included the option that maybe Ermey misunderstood or took something out of context without realising it.  Whatever the reason, there is far more evidence (albeit anecdotal) that Kubrick was more than satisfied with the film, than that which backs up Ermey's claim.

Yeah because he couldn't do those hobbies in any other country in the world? I've known about the Sri Lanka stuff for years but considering the current climate it's noteworthy that he was another VIP there were scandalous rumours about but nothing ever seriously done, and rubbing shoulders with Royals again etc. Not to denigrate the guy's work, but you have to sometimes separate the art from the artist.

It's a tricky one for sure, but all that article does is say a lot with nothing much to back it up.  I remember reading an interview with someone years ago (can't remember exactly who, but I'm pretty sure it was one of his contemporary sci-fi author friends) and, when the question of nonceness was raised, they found the suggestion of Clarke even being interested in sex, let alone actually doing it, laughable, making accusations of noncery being in the realms of impossibility.  Obviously there's nothing to back that up either, but all there is that suggests he might have been a bit of a nonce is merely circumstantial.

We may know more when his private diaries are published in the next 25-odd years.

[Funcrusher]

I know nothing about SF, but my dad's a fan and I seem to remember him saying many years ago that nonce stories about Clarke were being put about by some more right wing writers (Niven/Pournelle?) because there was some disagreement between them, and that it was just smear tactics based on his being gay. Don't know if that's true.

[great_badir]

I know nothing about SF, but my dad's a fan and I seem to remember him saying many years ago that nonce stories about Clarke were being put about by some more right wing writers (Niven/Pournelle?) because there was some disagreement between them, and that it was just smear tactics based on his being gay. Don't know if that's true.

No idea, but the smear tactics due to his sexual preference is entirely plausible.  He was, after all, all-but openly gay (at least to his friends, family, acquaintances and pretty much any media type who asked) in the 50s, when most were trying to do everything they could to prove they weren't (e.g. Dirk Bogarde and Rock Hudson).

[Steven]

I have many problems with the film, not least the casting of Jack Nicholson.  I've seen it countless times, but it's still the same old plodding piece of over-acted guff it was the first time I saw it.  It's like Kubrick decided that the (required) theatricals of Barry Lyndon were also suitable for a microscopically cast psychological horror set in an empty hotel in the middle of a modern-day American winter.  It just doesn't work for me on any level - it doesn't engage me, I care nothing for any of the characters (perhaps save old Scatman), it doesn't scare me.  Nothing.

Hmm, seeing it at a young age it was obviously incoherent and creepy to me. Repeated viewing made it slowly morph from a good horror into a comedy, mostly thanks to Nicholson's theatrics. Most of the horror element comes from the cinematography and soundtrack, which is down to Kubrick's obsessions with shooting style and lenses. Have you seen Beyond The Black Rainbow, I think it successfully aped Kubrick's shooting style to try and elevate what was really a load of old cack, by the end it turns into an 80s teenage slasher film, but does hint at the style-over-substance argument. I love The Shining, but it's become to me sort of like a well-acquainted comfortable pair of shoes. Incidentally I didn't like Barry Lyndon, but have only seen it once, lots of effort put into filming a satire that doesn't really get across much humour or satire in it.

That's why I've given the benefit of the doubt and included the option that maybe Ermey misunderstood or took something out of context without realising it.  Whatever the reason, there is far more evidence (albeit anecdotal) that Kubrick was more than satisfied with the film, than that which backs up Ermey's claim.

Ermey's good at running his mouth, so you could be right. I'd tend to believe the stuff about the stars and the studio trying to take control though, that's part of the game even if Kubrick didn't like the game itself.

It's a tricky one for sure, but all that article does is say a lot with nothing much to back it up.  I remember reading an interview with someone years ago (can't remember exactly who, but I'm pretty sure it was one of his contemporary sci-fi author friends) and, when the question of nonceness was raised, they found the suggestion of Clarke even being interested in sex, let alone actually doing it, laughable, making accusations of noncery being in the realms of impossibility.  Obviously there's nothing to back that up either, but all there is that suggests he might have been a bit of a nonce is merely circumstantial.

Yep, it is all just rumour mongering really but my alarm bells are ringing. He was obviously a weak and elderly man for many of his more celebrated years, so I would conclude friends relating he wasn't interested in sex is genuine, but what about in his younger days? I still find the move to Sri Lanka in the 50s to be rather suspicious. I'm not really interested in that aspect of his character to be honest but considering the current paedo-centric furore I thought it worth mentioning.

[great_badir]

Have you seen Beyond The Black Rainbow, I think it successfully aped Kubrick's shooting style to try and elevate what was really a load of old cack, by the end it turns into an 80s teenage slasher film, but does hint at the style-over-substance argument.

I haven't seen it, although I am aware of it.  If I'm honest, I've actively avoided it, mainly (and this is going to sound pathetic) because of its clearly self-edited Wiki page.  REALLY puts me off it, but I no doubt will at some point - when it's on TV, or if someone I know buys it.   

[greenman]

Hmm, seeing it at a young age it was obviously incoherent and creepy to me. Repeated viewing made it slowly morph from a good horror into a comedy, mostly thanks to Nicholson's theatrics. Most of the horror element comes from the cinematography and soundtrack, which is down to Kubrick's obsessions with shooting style and lenses. Have you seen Beyond The Black Rainbow, I think it successfully aped Kubrick's shooting style to try and elevate what was really a load of old cack, by the end it turns into an 80s teenage slasher film, but does hint at the style-over-substance argument. I love The Shining, but it's become to me sort of like a well-acquainted comfortable pair of shoes.

That's not really so strange for Kubrik is it though? Full Metal Jacket and Clockwork Orange are full of dark comedy and even 2001 has its moments with Dr Floyd or the interviews from earth being pure 50's nuclear family cheese. The man in a bear suit giving the butler a blowjob surely points somewhat towards intended comedy even if theres doubt as to whether Jack's over the top performance was intended as such.

[RickyGerbail]

Strangelove was a big dissapointment for me when i watched it. Not funny enough to stand as a comedy and too ridiculous plotwise to function as a drama. Barry Lyndon could be remade as a couple of decent landscape paintings without too much being lost in terms of plot or energy.

[greenman]

I actually felt Ridley Scott's clearly Kubrik inspired The Duelists was a better film than Barry Lyndon, both looked great but Harvey Keitel giving it a bit more energy.

[newbridge]

The man in a bear suit giving the butler a blowjob surely points somewhat towards intended comedy even if theres doubt as to whether Jack's over the top performance was intended as such.

Well if you describe it in words or freeze the frame it becomes somewhat silly, but in context I think it's one of the most unsettling scenes in the film.

I never thought Jack Nicholson was overacting, certainly not to the point of comedy. In fact I think it's an amazing performance. Obviously something like the "Here's Johnny!" line is darkly humorous, but more in a macabre way and definitely not in a ha-ha comedy way.

Maybe the Kubrick mystique and the ubiquity of The Shining have dulled its impact, because if you take out all of the suspense and the shock of something like the typewriter scene (or the bear costume scene) then I can see how it stops being effective and starts looking hammy. 

[Johnny Textface]

I generally agree with King that Jack Torrance shouldn't have been portrayed as being a bit mental from the outset. Supposed to have been an ordinary Joe who goes a bit bonkers.

[El Unicornio, mang]

King's other issue was with Wendy. In the book she's a strong, well rounded character, in the film she's just a wet squealing ninny.

[Paaaaul]

Everybody should listen closely to Stephen King on the subject of film, because his immaculate track record with the moving image makes him a guru.

[great_badir]

Everybody should listen closely to Stephen King on the subject of film, because his immaculate track record with the moving image makes him a guru.

Maximum Overdrive is one of my guilty pleasures.  Never get tired of that film.  In the same way I never get tired of Commando or Shark Attack 3.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Everybody should listen closely to Stephen King on the subject of film, because his immaculate track record with the moving image makes him a guru.

Well, no. I don't care how much a film is like the original book, and clearly Kubrick knows more about making films than King, but if there's one thing King does a lot better it's characters.

[greenman]

Well if you describe it in words or freeze the frame it becomes somewhat silly, but in context I think it's one of the most unsettling scenes in the film.

I never thought Jack Nicholson was overacting, certainly not to the point of comedy. In fact I think it's an amazing performance. Obviously something like the "Here's Johnny!" line is darkly humorous, but more in a macabre way and definitely not in a ha-ha comedy way.

Maybe the Kubrick mystique and the ubiquity of The Shining have dulled its impact, because if you take out all of the suspense and the shock of something like the typewriter scene (or the bear costume scene) then I can see how it stops being effective and starts looking hammy.

It would agree that Kubricks overall aim wasnt laughter or broad comedy(here or in any film but Strangelove). What I think makes the scene so unsettling is the absurb strangeness of it, espeically from the perspective of Shelly Duvall's character who we asume is has had a very straight laced life.

I would agree the Shining has lost a bit of its impact due to the shear amount of refferences and uses of similar techniques but I think part of what keeps in unique is that strange dark sense of humour, indeed I'd say the same for much of Kubricks work.

[Johnny Textface]

Everybody should listen closely to Stephen King on the subject of film, because his immaculate track record with the moving image makes him a guru.

He wasn't talking about framing or reverse angles, but the arc of the character - I'd say he has every right to comment on that aspect.

[Puce Moment]

I generally agree with King that Jack Torrance shouldn't have been portrayed as being a bit mental from the outset. Supposed to have been an ordinary Joe who goes a bit bonkers.

I genuinely think it is one of the most genius things about the film. There is something horribly inevitable about his slide into full madness - and I think he is so weak and fragile that the hotel sort of picks him as its next victim. He is an unstable alcoholic in an unhappy marriage as well as being a failed writer wracked with guilt about physically abusing his son. I'm glad he wan't played by Robert Duvall or Ryan O'Neal or some of the other personality vacuums that Kubrick had a tendency to hire for his films.

Going mental is a really difficult thing to pull off, and is rarely done well. A great example of a really fucking terrible way to show someone going from wholesome sane to crazy batshit is the King sanctioned TV adaptation of The Shining. If ever there was a way to gauge the opinion of an author against someone else's adaptation of their work, it is those two texts.