This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
If Kubrick thought his art was crap, I think it's somehwhat relevant. Others may have a different opinion regarding the artwork, but I don't think I'm out of line by suggesting Kubrick's opinion holds more weight. Of course, the man was old, and probably a bit crazy at the time, but I digress! Don't get me wrong, the film was entertaining, but I think it pales in comparison to Kubrick's other films.
I think it's a lot better than the highly lauded Barry Lyndon.
I don't even know who you are anymore.
Should I start hiding money?
Lol.(For what it's worth, I think it's better than Barry Lyndon. But I do love his use of natural lighting in BL. Breathtaking.)
Sure. Kubrick's photography is only matched by a handful of directors (Scorsese, Altman, Coppola, Welles, Coens, etc). But the some of the acting in Lyndon is embarrassingly bad.
I remember the naked chicks in A Clockwork Orange being rather tall and slender. Or at least, the redhead from the famous "Singing in the Rain" scene. (Man, I still find that scene really distrubing.)Can't really remember what the chick that the other gang they got into a fight with looked like, or the 2 he has the threesome with. Haven't seen it in a while.
I can't claim to have hung out with a lot of artists or anything, but I always thought that one of the stereotypes they fall into is an insecurity that manifests as always thinking their stuff is #### before it's finished. Even after its finished on occasion. Maybe that's just one of those cliches that's overblown.
I have a degree in music composition. I've spent countless hours on my works. I can tell you that most competant artists constantly judge their own work very harshly. And to further my argument:I designed a beer label last year. I did 20 designs, my associate worked on 40. So the client had sixty unique comps to choose from. They chose one of mine, and let me tell you that it was by far the worst of the bunch. I hate that label because I know how cool it coul have looked. But the client is thrilled and the beer is selling well.
I concur. I only watch it for the beauty.(and not very often).jdoggydogg said:
I received Full Metal Jacket on blu ray months ago and I still haven't watched that version yet. Savoring it
ryan o'neal is a weak actor and that's a problem considering he's the lead. that said, everything else works pretty well for me in "Barry". It kind of reminds me of Lester's "muskateers" films at times and i dig that.that said, i like "barry lyndon" much, much more than "EWS". i think it's essentially an unfinished work. it feels less like kubrick than pretty much any of his other films.jdoggydogg said:
I see what you're saying. But it feels exactly like a Kubrick movie to me. Kubrick, more than any other director I can think of, films his works with a alarmingly aloof, cold disposition. I don't know what Kubrick was like as a person, but the reason I love his art is he doesn't seem interested in revealing any of his own emotional links to his characters. Kubrick was like a sociopathic, reptillian being who was given the task of merely documenting a lot of awful behavior. So in that regard, Eyes Wide Shut is a perfect coda to Kubrick's brilliance.
I'd have to disagree with this. I think his biases are revealed in his pacing, his lighting, his angles, his tone. He's an artist, not a documentatian (imo).
You're assuming I'm not giving him credit by calling him a documentarian. I've said before I think that Kubrick was a brilliant artist. But let's comare him, for example, to Oliver Stone. Stone is a hamfisted, obvious, wear-it-on-your-sleeve director that avoids subtlety like it's herpes. If you look at a guy like Stone, Kubrick is on the opposite spectrum. If Stone is Michael Bolton, Kubrick was Arnold Schoenberg.
I thought A.I. was very good, but I've only seen it once. Definitely a better film than Eyes Wide Shut, IMO. And I prefer Nicole Kidman in the movie Dead Calm, or even To Die For, over her performance in Eyes Wide Shut.
you, sir, are a philistine.
As an artist, I think this holds water for a number of us. Not every artist, but there's a significant number of us that think just like this. Faulkner is famous for saying all novels are failures, some are just splendid failures. I'm not saying Kubrick was this way, but he was a perfectionist and highly demanding on the set, so it wouldn't surprise me if he was. I remember one source said he made Cruise walk down the hallway in one shot 60+ times until he thought it was perfect. All he did was walk down a hallway.Buckna said:
One of my favorite parts of the movie is the music during the orgy. Good stuff.
Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to leave.
Thanks for posting that. I love the AV Club so I am stoked to read that article.
This is the vibe I got too, and this is how it makes sense for me. Most dreams/nightmares don't have airtight resolutions. I saw it when it came out and thought it was awesome (though I think Mulholland Drive is even better, FWIW.) Have not seen it since, though.
Excellent piece. AV Club rocks.
Totally. The AV Club piece on EWS is definitely worth reading - and it touches on some of the themes of this discussion.
it's a movie that reads better than it plays. it might trade in these ideas but it isn't necessarily a good film...
This is said a little too factually for my taste.
meh. art is subjective. that write-up worked almost too hard at redeeming the film, imo.
Well, yeah, it wasn't really an objective piece. The guy clearly loves the movie.
1 Orange, 2 Shining, 3 2001, 4 Jacket, 5 Eyes, 6 Strangelove, 8 Lolita, 9 the rest.I'm going this way:1. 20012. Full Metal Jacket3. A Clockwork Orange4. The Shining5. Dr. Strangelove6. Eyes Wide Shut7. Paths of Glory8. LolitaHaven't seen Barry Lyndon or Spartacus although I have the DVDs.good ranking, can't really disagree much here
Dr. Strangelove
I don't think the movie does a very good job of explaining the social aspect. The plot is stuck with the framework provided by the book, it's confusing because the doctor is constantly being excluded from things, he can't partake in all these pleasures. Why? Well one reason is he's married, but that's not all. He turns down the shopkeeper's offer of his daughter and also the prostitute but he is so damned anxious to get into that damned mansion. Why? Because the first two are low down and seedy while the mansion is super elite and beyond his grasp? And there he is excluded. The better point is about not appreciating what you have. It's the classic tale often-told of a man who has everything and doesn't appreciate it until he is on the verge of losing it. That part is done very well but it's been done before.
