Hello all. I want to start a discussion that I've been wanting to have with devout cinema-lovers for a long time.
And this has to do with the perceived reputation of director Stanley Kubrick in the film community. It seems that since his death in the late 90s, Mr. Kubrick has comfortably reserved his place as one of the great American directors of the 20th century and several of his films are often cited amongst the greatest the world has ever seen.
Now one cannot question the narrative ambition of a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey and any account of the defining films of the 20th century would look bizarre and unsatisfying if it did not include this beautifully orchestrated space epic. But my issues lie, not with his 2 genre-defining films in Dr. Strangelove and 2001 (which I do respect even if I do not admire), but with the rest of his films which have for some reason also dramatically risen in stature.
My question is, is this change in public opinion really because of the initially unperceived depth of these films or because their reputation hinges entirely on the reputation of the director whose stature has dramatically risen since he directed those films.
In my opinon, Kubrick was primarily a technical film-maker who sure knew how to handle lights and cameras. But he was never a great story teller. Several of his later films consist of characters that are as two dimensional as the celluloid in which they exist, they are dull, lifeless and emotionally void. A churlish argument that's often made in defence of some of these criticisms is that "it was intended to be that way". But that really is no defence at all. It simply shifts the fault from execution of the project to the intentions behind it.
In fact, it's not just Mr. Kubrick that falls into this trap. The great Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni faces exactly the same problems in his later years as a director (and some of his later films are hugely derided even to this day).
But even if people accept this criticism as legitimate, they will say that Stanley Kubrick more than makes up for it by being a great thinker. Is he though really? It's an undeniably fact that Mr. Kubrick is a smart man who wants to present the audience something different to what they're usually accustomed to and I admire him for that but I don't think that what he eventually turns up is a significant improvement than the cliche-ridden plots he's desperately trying to run away from.
For instance, consider a film such A Clockwork Orange. This is a work of immature, irresponsible grade-school misanthropy that you would expect from inebriated philosophy majors at a frat party, not a renowned film-maker (although to put things into perspective, I actually think the book is equally overrated). No one is questioning the premise or even the conclusion of the film, it's just the way Mr. Kubrick attempts to "explore" his ideas with a disdainful immaturity. that bothers me. Mr. Kubrick could use a little bit of the patience and reflectivity of his great idol, Ingmar Bergman.
The other film that falls into the same category is Lolita. Now I realize that this is not recognised as one of his best films but it's still worth pointing out that Mr. Kubrick has taken one of greatest novels of the 20th century and turned it entirely into a film about perversion and sexual tensions between an adult and a child. Although the book does have Oedipal undertones, that is not at all what it's fundamentally about. It's about a man who's longing for the innocence of a child and that's what makes it so poignant. I know it's unfair to judge a film with respect to how loyal it is to its source material; afterall a film stands on its own but Mr Kubrick's work doesn't have any of the depth or beauty present in the source material.
But then Kubrick went on to direct, what is in a lot of ways his most impressive film in Barry Lyndon, a film about a character who is at complete mercy to the cosmos, a man who literally makes his way to the royal palace in the most remarkable and comedic fashion -by playing games of chance (and cheating), risking his life in duals and literally running away from every battle he has fought in. But then just as he tries to impose himself and take control of his life, he starts to lose everything. The climactic battle scene between Barry Lyndon and his son in law is the best scene Mr. Kubrick has ever directed. Redmond Barry chooses to exercise free will at its most, self-sacrifice, and he loses his leg for it. Barry Lyndon shares the exact same pessimism that is overtly present in A Clockwork Orange but it seems as though Mr. Kubrick learned his lesson this time and rather than reverting to the tedious polemic self-indulgent misanthropy, he has created a compassionate and mature work of art of the absolute contradictions of human existence.
But that does not mean Barry Lyndon is immune to criticism, it is in a lot of ways his most artificial film (even more so than 2001) and that makes it very difficult to connect with emotionally.
And then we move on to Eyes Wide Shut, a film that has attained a near-mythical cult status for reasons that's completely baffling to me. Mr Kubrick has essentially made a film about what it means to be married but the problem is I cannot get past how silly the whole premise is. Tom Cruise's character essentially bumbles from one unrelated event to the next, purely on the motivation that he feels the need to cheat on his marriage because he misjudged his wife's ability to fantasise.
Moreover his breakdown at the end is all the more ridiculous because he didn't actually do anything except spend a hideous amount of money not doing it. If this is an accurate analysis of posh relationships in the nineties, heaven help us all. The film is for the most part aimless, pointless and clearly indicates that the director was well past his prime, a director who seems to take pleasure in making things weird for the sake of being weird. If this film was made by any other director, it would've long been forgotten.
Eyes Wide Shut is, like 2001, a quintessential example of incomprehensibility disguised as profundity. But my point is Eyes Wide Shut does not have the breathtaking cinematic innovations that 2001 had. It's a blank canvas that is bound to be painted with self-appointed interpreters of the film. That's great but do not give the director more credit than he deserves.
Finally I just want to say a few words about Paths of Glory, a film I was tremendously moved by at first sight but which has not aged well with me. Paths of Glory is the film that every Kubrick fan (or even most non-Kubrick fans) seem to admire, which is entirely unsurprising because it's the easiest film he's ever made. But part of me feels that Mr. Kubrick has really taken the easiest of the easy roads with this film. The film picks the very particular situation where the extremely difficult ethical question of whether it's moral to sacrifice the lives of few soldiers to save greater number of lives is reduced to a simple reassuring yes or no answer. The film glosses over all moral complexities to become basically a story about the corrupt bureaucrats who have no respect for the soldiers who fight for them. Whilst it is a very good film for what it is, I feel this was a missed opportunity to make a truly great film and I suspect Mr. Kubrick agrees because he never went for a project of this kind ever again.
I think this is a good place to stop. I understand that I may be out of line with some of the above comments but I'm interested in hearing your point of view. Is Kubrick really the master director he is made out to be or is he yet another director whose reputation has been overblown because of a couple of films that people have held on to.
And this has to do with the perceived reputation of director Stanley Kubrick in the film community. It seems that since his death in the late 90s, Mr. Kubrick has comfortably reserved his place as one of the great American directors of the 20th century and several of his films are often cited amongst the greatest the world has ever seen.
Now one cannot question the narrative ambition of a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey and any account of the defining films of the 20th century would look bizarre and unsatisfying if it did not include this beautifully orchestrated space epic. But my issues lie, not with his 2 genre-defining films in Dr. Strangelove and 2001 (which I do respect even if I do not admire), but with the rest of his films which have for some reason also dramatically risen in stature.
My question is, is this change in public opinion really because of the initially unperceived depth of these films or because their reputation hinges entirely on the reputation of the director whose stature has dramatically risen since he directed those films.
In my opinon, Kubrick was primarily a technical film-maker who sure knew how to handle lights and cameras. But he was never a great story teller. Several of his later films consist of characters that are as two dimensional as the celluloid in which they exist, they are dull, lifeless and emotionally void. A churlish argument that's often made in defence of some of these criticisms is that "it was intended to be that way". But that really is no defence at all. It simply shifts the fault from execution of the project to the intentions behind it.
In fact, it's not just Mr. Kubrick that falls into this trap. The great Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni faces exactly the same problems in his later years as a director (and some of his later films are hugely derided even to this day).
But even if people accept this criticism as legitimate, they will say that Stanley Kubrick more than makes up for it by being a great thinker. Is he though really? It's an undeniably fact that Mr. Kubrick is a smart man who wants to present the audience something different to what they're usually accustomed to and I admire him for that but I don't think that what he eventually turns up is a significant improvement than the cliche-ridden plots he's desperately trying to run away from.
For instance, consider a film such A Clockwork Orange. This is a work of immature, irresponsible grade-school misanthropy that you would expect from inebriated philosophy majors at a frat party, not a renowned film-maker (although to put things into perspective, I actually think the book is equally overrated). No one is questioning the premise or even the conclusion of the film, it's just the way Mr. Kubrick attempts to "explore" his ideas with a disdainful immaturity. that bothers me. Mr. Kubrick could use a little bit of the patience and reflectivity of his great idol, Ingmar Bergman.
The other film that falls into the same category is Lolita. Now I realize that this is not recognised as one of his best films but it's still worth pointing out that Mr. Kubrick has taken one of greatest novels of the 20th century and turned it entirely into a film about perversion and sexual tensions between an adult and a child. Although the book does have Oedipal undertones, that is not at all what it's fundamentally about. It's about a man who's longing for the innocence of a child and that's what makes it so poignant. I know it's unfair to judge a film with respect to how loyal it is to its source material; afterall a film stands on its own but Mr Kubrick's work doesn't have any of the depth or beauty present in the source material.
But then Kubrick went on to direct, what is in a lot of ways his most impressive film in Barry Lyndon, a film about a character who is at complete mercy to the cosmos, a man who literally makes his way to the royal palace in the most remarkable and comedic fashion -by playing games of chance (and cheating), risking his life in duals and literally running away from every battle he has fought in. But then just as he tries to impose himself and take control of his life, he starts to lose everything. The climactic battle scene between Barry Lyndon and his son in law is the best scene Mr. Kubrick has ever directed. Redmond Barry chooses to exercise free will at its most, self-sacrifice, and he loses his leg for it. Barry Lyndon shares the exact same pessimism that is overtly present in A Clockwork Orange but it seems as though Mr. Kubrick learned his lesson this time and rather than reverting to the tedious polemic self-indulgent misanthropy, he has created a compassionate and mature work of art of the absolute contradictions of human existence.
But that does not mean Barry Lyndon is immune to criticism, it is in a lot of ways his most artificial film (even more so than 2001) and that makes it very difficult to connect with emotionally.
And then we move on to Eyes Wide Shut, a film that has attained a near-mythical cult status for reasons that's completely baffling to me. Mr Kubrick has essentially made a film about what it means to be married but the problem is I cannot get past how silly the whole premise is. Tom Cruise's character essentially bumbles from one unrelated event to the next, purely on the motivation that he feels the need to cheat on his marriage because he misjudged his wife's ability to fantasise.
Moreover his breakdown at the end is all the more ridiculous because he didn't actually do anything except spend a hideous amount of money not doing it. If this is an accurate analysis of posh relationships in the nineties, heaven help us all. The film is for the most part aimless, pointless and clearly indicates that the director was well past his prime, a director who seems to take pleasure in making things weird for the sake of being weird. If this film was made by any other director, it would've long been forgotten.
Eyes Wide Shut is, like 2001, a quintessential example of incomprehensibility disguised as profundity. But my point is Eyes Wide Shut does not have the breathtaking cinematic innovations that 2001 had. It's a blank canvas that is bound to be painted with self-appointed interpreters of the film. That's great but do not give the director more credit than he deserves.
Finally I just want to say a few words about Paths of Glory, a film I was tremendously moved by at first sight but which has not aged well with me. Paths of Glory is the film that every Kubrick fan (or even most non-Kubrick fans) seem to admire, which is entirely unsurprising because it's the easiest film he's ever made. But part of me feels that Mr. Kubrick has really taken the easiest of the easy roads with this film. The film picks the very particular situation where the extremely difficult ethical question of whether it's moral to sacrifice the lives of few soldiers to save greater number of lives is reduced to a simple reassuring yes or no answer. The film glosses over all moral complexities to become basically a story about the corrupt bureaucrats who have no respect for the soldiers who fight for them. Whilst it is a very good film for what it is, I feel this was a missed opportunity to make a truly great film and I suspect Mr. Kubrick agrees because he never went for a project of this kind ever again.
I think this is a good place to stop. I understand that I may be out of line with some of the above comments but I'm interested in hearing your point of view. Is Kubrick really the master director he is made out to be or is he yet another director whose reputation has been overblown because of a couple of films that people have held on to.
Last edited by Nameless_Paladin; 06-22-17 at 03:10 PM.