Stanley Kubrick: Bad Director

Exactly as I was saying Nexus, of course you were more succinct. Damn my verbose heart

__________________
"You have to believe in God before you can say there are things that man was not meant to know. I don't think there's anything man wasn't meant to know. There are just some stupid things that people shouldn't do." -David Cronenberg

The only thing I can think is that he felt cheated that Kubrick dangles the promise of a traditional three act structure only to pull it back and deliver a two act story instead. Personally, I think its a brilliant artifice, because it enhances the grueling brutality of 'Vietnam, The Movie.' He sets us up for a redemptive third act, only to dash our hopes with an endless, unresolved, killing slog - a psychological echo of the war itself. To me, that's cinema at its finest and most daring. Is it pleasant and enjoyable to watch? No. Is it a work of genius? Yes.

A similar point can be made about the way Kubrick's characters are drawn in Full Metal Jacket. One of the themes running through much of Kubrick's work is that of Man and the Machine. This concern, of course, is explored most explicitly in Dr. Strangelove, where the Machine seals the fate of Man, and 2001, where being human is in part defined by our use of tools but we are at the same time dehumanized by our reliance upon them. The same theme is incorporated into the subtext of Full Metal Jacket, but it is done in a more organic fashion. The "Machine" becomes an institution (the Corps) and an event (the War), and as the characters in the film are ground down by the Machine, they progressively loose the dimensionality they once had. They cease to be 'characters' and become 'caricatures' - reflecting the dwindling of their inner human spirit in the face of the onslaught of the machine. This isn't the hallmark of 'bad' filmmaking, it's the kind of subtlety that only comes from the hand of a true auteur.

Agreed, couldn't have said it better.

I'm surprised the words 'cold' or 'distant' weren't mentioned.

Detached perhaps?

I've never understood that criticism of Ran. The same people who bitched about its static cameras criticized Kurosawa's other works for not being 'authentically' Japanese.

Yeah, the idea was Ran is meant to be told from the point of view from God so the camera never moves. However, there was this guy on Rotten Tomatoes who said the cinematography was overrated because he wanted the camera to move more since that's what 'great' cinematography 'should' be like. Crazy bastard.

So was the word 'detached' used in this thread? I can see why some feel that way. You're often not meant to identify with the characters of Kubrick's films. There's a lot of people - usually the kind who look for character development in everything - that want films to be escapism all the time, to 'enter' that film world. It always bothers me when someone says, "Video games are better than movies because you're part of the action!!111!" Um, that's nice, but sometimes you don't want to be part of the action. There aren't any scenes in Kubrick's films that are like, say, City Of God, where there's lots of up-close handheld camerawork so you feel like you're really there with the entertaining characters. Kubrick, like Cronenberg, has what many describe as a cold and analytical way of filming things. However, I don't find Kubrick cold at all. Even if few of the characters in 2001 feel human, I still find the film incredibly beautiful. And his sense of humour is great.

But if Dark Party thinks that a film 'should' have strong characterisation (I don't think a film 'should' or 'shouldn't' be anything, because thinking up these kind of rules usually means lack of experimentation) then okay. A lot of Kubrick movies, especially 2001, aren't a conventional movies, but more like 'experiences'. You're knocking his films for not doing something that only you think he should be doing though. It's like saying David Lynch is a crap director because he can't do cohesive plots.

That's why I try to criticize films within the context of what they aim to be, rather than what I think film 'should' be. In my estimation, for instance, Saving Private Ryan is an artistic failure because it simply doesn't live up to what it hopes and claims to be: a realistic, morally nuanced film about the war. It's a visually realistic movie that is psychologically inauthentic and morally unsophisticated. It's a character driven piece with no actual characters. End result - a couple of technically amazing battle sequences bookending two hours of what to me is intellectually and ethically insulting drivel. This, I think, is legitimate criticism, limited to the context of what the film aims at. Criticizing 2001 for not having more action sequences is not what I would consider legitimate criticism - because it misses the point entirely.

I agree with both of you.

Part of the reason I mentioned both Greenaway and Lynch (Cronenberg was a given, check the quote) was the lack of a "coherent" narrative structure. I agree that most films worth their weight need to be experienced as individual moments in time. I'm not as critical as most, I don't pull out narrative flaws and I dismiss many instances of bad dialog placement and delivery. I tend to take each film as a singular experience, as a whole from beginning to end.

I am usually very forgiving especially when I have a sense of what the filmmaker is trying to achieve. Fail or succeed, I often give as much effort for the attempt as I do for the flawed unfinished product. Imperfect films can move me as much as finely crafted ones, sometimes more.

The original post in this thread reminds me of myself..............35 years ago!!!! and yeah I am 40....Seriously though Holden was right, this is a total bait and "cause waves" topic. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with hating a director yet praising them at the same time rant, but comeon seriously??????? Genius is usually misunderstood by the closed-minded disenchanted folk of today anyhow, so ok yeah 2 each their own, AMEN.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

I think we scared him away.

Good.

2001 did make me yawn. I'll give you that. A Clockwork Orange was amazing. As was Dr. Strangelove. Lolita was alright, as was Full Metal Jacket. Eyes Wide ****...i mean...

__________________
tell'em steve-dave!

Never felt one way or the other about him, really, i respect him, but i dont love the dude

I feel the same way about Kubrick that I do about Scorsese. If you can't trust your film enough to keep your overbearing style out of it, then you just wind up ruining the movie.
Additionally, if it takes you 3 years to make a film and it turns out as badly as Eyes Wide Shut, then your director's guild membership should be revoked. No excuse.

How can you say that. I am not going to spend the time debating you, so I guess I have no merit, but I just need to say it. My one comment, I guess, has to be that photographers who transist to directing make the best directors.

If you're anti-style, why even have a director?

If every director worked like that, they'd all resemble Kevin Smith!

I find Kubrick's movies boring, but I think he is far from a bad director. I can recognize talent even if I fall asleep during the movies. This sounds weird that I can say he has talent when I find everything boring. But it shows that I can appreciate something when I don't like it myself. Like Van Gogh, I don't like his art but I can see his talent...

i think kubrick is good director, he just has some bad movies.a clockwork orange and 2001 a space odessesy i think are great movies, but everyone has their opinions.

*Faints*

Nooooooooooooooo.

Say it ain't so!

LOVE Van Gogh. By far my favorite painter. I have a massive Van Gogh canvas in my living room (not original, of course). I also have one hanging over my bed...

__________________