|
|
Post by erik on Jul 16, 2006 18:36:17 GMT -5
Okay, this man may have only made thirteen films in a span of forty-six years, but a great many of them have, for one reason or another, been quite controversial, and several of them are regarded as masterpieces.
So chime in with what is your favorite film from Mr. Kubrick, and fire away with your opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by arjan on Jul 16, 2006 18:53:56 GMT -5
I think I've seen only 5 or 6... but no movie will beat Dr. Strangelove which is absolutely brilliant. The ridiculousness about the cold war very well portrayed and Peter Sellers in 3 amazing roles.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jul 16, 2006 19:10:13 GMT -5
I went with 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY; but with a film director of Kubrick's caliber, it is often hard to choose. With respect to DR. STRANGELOVE--I would have to say that it is the most stinging, intelligent political satire ever made for the cinema. Besides Sellers, who I agree is matchless, credit should also be given to George C. Scott, whose characterization of Buck Turgidson is known to be modeled off the ultra-controversial Curtis LeMay; Sterling Hayden, whose Jack D. Ripper remains chillingly hilarious for the theory about fluoridation being a Commie-inspired plot to sap us of our "precious bodily fluids" (which a lot of right-wingers in America during the 1950s thought was the actual case!); and Slim Pickens, whose 12-second ride to Armageddon has sharp relevance even today (see below):  |
|
|
|
Post by egoodstein on Jul 16, 2006 20:44:42 GMT -5
I went narrowly w. Clockwork Orange which I think had the most impact on me personally. Close were 2001 & Strangelove. & I also have a lot of respect for Spartacus (best of those Roman epics of that time I think), and Barry Lyndon which I think is underated & fascinating visually.  Ed |
|
|
|
Post by bluesron on Jul 16, 2006 20:49:52 GMT -5
i went with Full Metal Jacket, I'm not as big a fan of kubrick as i should be i guess.
2001 i truly hated, one of the most boring movies i ever saw
john ford would have made it more interesting lol
ron
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jul 16, 2006 21:11:07 GMT -5
I love Full Metal Jacket and went for that movie with nothing close
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Jul 17, 2006 1:11:35 GMT -5
2001: A Space Odyssey, for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertaxel on Jul 17, 2006 6:48:44 GMT -5
Dr. Strangelove.. it holds up best for me, and I cannot imagine any other director making this film. In addition, it won our all-time movie poll, and we're never wrong :}
Robert
|
|
|
|
Post by Kathy ~ on Jul 17, 2006 12:30:07 GMT -5
I'M WITH DAVE & RON HERE.. ALMOST WENT WITH THE SHINING.. WOULD HAVE BEEN MY SECOND CHOICE... JUST FOR JACK !!
FULL METAL... THE FIRST HALF ALONE WITH BOOT CAMP AND MAN YOU ARE THERE.. BRILLIANT WORK.. I STILL GO BACK & FORTH W/ THIS VS. PLATOON 
|
|
|
|
Post by Kathy ~ on Jul 17, 2006 12:32:44 GMT -5
i went with Full Metal Jacket, I'm not as big a fan of kubrick as i should be i guess. 2001 i truly hated, one of the most boring movies i ever saw john ford would have made it more interesting lol ron DIG THE DUKE THERE RONO ?? & AGAIN I AGREE, I HAVE TRIED BOTH STRANGLOVE AND 2001, COULD NOT GET INTO IT.. TOO DARK AND NOT OFFENDING ANYONE.. JUST NOT ME.. CAN'T GET WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT !!  |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jul 17, 2006 13:21:13 GMT -5
Quote by Kathy:
That's the thing about Kubrick--he never made it easy for audiences to watch his films just once in order to "get" the gist of those films.
|
|
|
|
Post by walt on Jul 20, 2006 19:03:16 GMT -5
i picked 2001, because that film is absolute magic
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Jul 21, 2006 1:09:19 GMT -5
Yes, walt, an unique magic.
2001 is a part of me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 4, 2006 12:19:26 GMT -5
2001 was my pick here...not just some weird flick...I just know there's a deeper meaning in there somewhere, because everyone keeps saying so. Intuitively I know it to be so. I enjoy puzzling over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertaxel on Aug 4, 2006 12:27:54 GMT -5
Andrew;
I recommend the book 2001 by Arthur C. Clarke; even more mind boggling than the film in a way, and will shed a lot of light on it (unless you don't want to :}
R
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 5, 2006 12:42:52 GMT -5
Robert,
I shall indeed take your advice ;-) I had a copy of that book once and never got around to reading it. Thanks for the reminder. Not much time before school starts though...may be a wait.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2006 18:43:52 GMT -5
Speaking of Dr. Strangelove...
I finally saw it about an hour ago.
I thought it was brilliant parody. In terms of filmmaking, however, I'm missing one thing. Why was so much time spent on the specifics in the airplane? All those steps, all those "rogers," etc. etc. I admit I'm feeling ill today, but I was also growing impatient. Does anyone have any opinion about that? I get the feeling that Mr. Kubrick didn't do anything accidentally.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertaxel on Sept 23, 2006 18:48:13 GMT -5
Erik is the top Kubrick authority in the group, but you are correct in that assuming that nothing was left to chance... Kubrick was notorious as a perfectionist to the point of often driving his actors crazy. I am sure Erik has examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Sept 23, 2006 21:02:25 GMT -5
Kubrick wanted things played as realistic as possible, and the procedures aboard the B-52 had to be done, at least for Kubrick, in a step-by-step pattern to enhance the tension and the reality that this one plane was going to drop a device that would in effect trigger an irreversible nuclear Armageddon.
The interesting thing about DOCTOR STRANGELOVE, each time I see it, is how it in fact does deal seriously with the issue of thermonuclear war. What Kubrick is satirizing is the political and military behavior of America's elected leaders during the Cold War, and thus making the idea that a few men who could save the world are also capable of destroying it at the drop of a hat much more stinging.
Of course, during the B-52 sequence, pilot Slim Pickens does lighten things up when he reads off the Survival Kit Contents--things like "prophylactics, three lipsticks, three pair a' nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff." (LOL)
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2006 8:41:57 GMT -5
Thanks for that explanation...I think it does make sense. Probably most of it was for me that I'm feeling quite sick, and I wasn't in the mode for building tension, so I really just got impatient Will certainly watch it again later, and at a time when I'm feeling better. Very funny, honest movie. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Sept 24, 2006 12:01:24 GMT -5
And yes, truth be told, Kubrick was very much a perfectionist, though the legend that he sometimes made his actors do upwards of 100 takes of just a single scene was so grossly untrue (how could he ever have even gotten one film finished if he forced actors to do that many takes?).
Kubrick also often took years to make a film because he wanted to find properties that piqued his interest sufficiently (i.e., to the point of obsession) to lead to him wanting to put it all onscreen. For that very reason, any time one of his films would be released was always considered an Event.
|
|
|
|
Post by arjan on Oct 15, 2006 10:41:14 GMT -5
I saw 2001 this weekend. It was interesting, though I didn't understand much of what was going on and why. But the last half hour, after he supposedly flies into the monolite (not that that is clear in the movie) I lost all sense f what was going one. First the laser show for several minutes, than some castle where he, again supposedly as it's not explained, sees himself as an older man, I lost interest there and couldn't wait for the movie to end.
I watched it with a friend who had read the book and sometimes explained what was shown on the screen. But I think a movie must be watchable without first having read to book.
That's also a thing about Stepen King-movies, and in particular The Shining. Having read all his books I can never be sure but I think it's difficult to understand a movie like The Shining, or even Pet Semetary, without knowing the story from the book. That's also why I don't like the movie The Shining at all. It goes way too fast and makes no sense, one minute Jack's all sane and cheerful and the next he's a maniac. In the book it takes about 200 pages, if not more, to get there.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 15, 2006 19:18:37 GMT -5
With respect to 2001, they had to get Keir Dullea's astronaut transported across the universe, so they, or more specifically special effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull, came up with the slit-scan process to simulate a time/space warp of sorts. The sequence inside that 18th century room is where Dullea undergoes a rapid aging process, and then dies, only to be "reborn" as a Star-Child. It's a bald synopsis of that film's last sequence, but Kubrick really had this M.O. in his films of challenging audiences to actually think, which is not something you'd normally do.
As to Jack Torrance's rapid collapse in THE SHINING--well, you have to chalk that up to Kubrick choosing to cast someone like Jack Nicholson in that role. But I think it is made clear that he has a history of violence and alcoholism before he even becomes the Overlook's caretaker, and the trick is not in whether it takes a long or short period of time for him to go totally over the edge, but how it happens. Again, it's a case of Kubrick not making things very easy for an audience (IMHO).
|
|
Ed
