Kubrick .vs. Spielberg: Posing a "What If"

Hello again all

I just caught the last few minutes of the documentry on the life and carrer of Stanley Keubrick a few minutes ago on HBO, and I learned something intersting that I thought I might share and pose as a what if with ever to hopefully garness a topic of conversation.

I was interested in learning while watching, that Keubrick was actually in the planning stages of doing his own holocost movie but shelved it (very discruntly I believe) when he learned that Steven Speilburg had just started Shildliers List (sp).

Now, I have never sat down to watch Shiedlers list (sp), and my knowlage of Kuebrick is limited as of yet. I've only started watching the majority of his films. However I love his sense of artisity in his work.

My question to you all then is this, I wondered, what do you think (1) would have been the "box office draw" of Kubrick vs Spielberg on these two similar projects (btw, I might want to mention that Kubricks work was to be storied on a Jewish family trying to escape Nazi Germany.) and (2) Though this question may be a bit more estoteric, what kind of movie, knowing that Kuebrick had always had a love of WW2 and shelved his movie very begruningly In my opinion) do you think it would have been?

I look forward to your imput

__________________
"Its funny how the colors of the real world, only seem really real when you vidi them on the screen"
~Alex
A Clockwork Orange

Kubrick's holocaust film would have been very different from Schindler's List just as all of his other films are very different from Spielberg's films.

There is no doubt in my mind that Spielberg would have "won" the battle over the box office against Kubrick. Spielberg is an audience's director much more than Kubrick ever was.

I think this is comparable to when both Spielberg and Terrence Malick made WWII films in 1998 and Saving Private Ryan completely stole the show from The Thin Red Line. Comparisions between the very different films were inevitable and the more philisophical The Thin Red Line was shadowed by the audience oriented Saving Private Ryan. Kubrick must have foreseen this scenario (which Malick didn't, or didn't care about) and realized that his film would possibly be misinterpreted and overseen by the masses if he had to compete with Spielberg.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I just wondered from your post Pidzillza, is it your contention then that Speilburg sells his movies to his audience vs making them for the artistic quality? I have no real loalties here. I just wanted to make sure I understand your viewpoints

I know I take a lot of crap for being nitpicky, but is it too much to ask, especially when you've devoted a specific thread to the filmmakers and name them many times, that you at least make an attempt to spell their frippin' names correctly???

Steven Spielberg (S-P-I-E-L-B-E-R-G)

Stanley Kubrick (K-U-B-R-I-C-K)


Thanks.


And to address the question a bit, yes, of course Kubrick's take on The Holocaust would have been interesting to see, and surely different from Spielberg's (or anybody else's). Not only did Kubrick shelve his long-researched project, but Martin Scorsese was actually attached to Schindler's List before Spielberg, and that has always intrigued me as well, imagining how that film in particular would have differed.

As I've said before on the board, Spileberg's Schindler's List is an earnest and important film, BUT it does have a few flaws, stemming directly from his sentimental sensibility and style of filmmaking. Scorsese and Kubrick have very, very different styles than Spielberg, so of course their takes on the same or similar material would have been unique to them. And if anybody could really predict what those differences would be, well...we wouldn't need Scorsese and Kubrick, would we? They are who they are because they are unique and unpredictible.

It took Roman Polanski decades as a filmmaker before he tackled the subject, with last year's magnificent The Pianist. And of course his interpretation was not only based on the memoir of Szpilman, but his own first-hand memories and impressions from being a Survivor himself, and having lost most of his family to The Holocaust.


As for "box office draw", who gives a flip? That Schindler's List was as successful as it was financially was wholly unpredictible in itself. If Scorsese or Kubrick would have been the first of that generation of filmmakers to come out with a Holocaust-themed movie, they might very well have experienced similar fortunes. Or, they might well have not. If Spielberg's Schindler's List had been released a year or two earlier or later, there's no way of knowing if even it would have had the same kind of box office returns. Screenwriter William Goldman (Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid, The Princess Bride) put it best when he says "Nobody in Hollywood knows anything. It's all bullsh!t." If there were an actual, surefire formula for success, there wouldn't ever be a flop. Every single film a major Studio makes in a year, they expect them all to show a profit, be some measure of hit. But each year they're lucky if any two of their productions become especially popular. Nobody tries to make a movie that nobody winds up seeing. Anybody who points to social indicators and such for the popularity of a movie after the fact is talking out of their @ss. There's no such direct correlation. In the end, it's all mysterious and random.



Anywho. That's my input.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Thanks for the spelling corrections on the names Holden I'm horrible with my grammer.

As for box office draw, I use it only as the only mesuring stick available to determine a movies ultimate success/falure. The sad truth IMO is there are plenty of great movies that gross 100k and simply horrible movies that make millions..but its what we have to use..

As I have very strong opinions on Roman Poloanski as a person, I have never seen his movies. Expecially The Pianist (geez I think I need a dictonary for Christmas! lol). Though it is playing on Stars next month. So I may see it then.

I would like to ask you Holden, you mentioned that Martin Scorsese had an involovment in Schindler's List? (Quoted)

For those like myself who arn't as well versed, could you elaborate please? Thank you

I don't think Spielberg sacrifices any of his artistery for the sake of commercialism when he makes his films. He just happens to have a style that appeals to a very large number of people. As Holden said, he has a thing for sentimentalism and people like to laugh and cry when they go to the movies.

Very interesting. The idea of sentimentality as a factor in this. I would be interested in knowing if Scorsese and Kubricks' movies have that same thread in them. I've seen several of Kubricks' movies, though I cant think off hand if this particular idea bears itself or not.

Spielburg deffinatly though..just have to look at ET

Also, I wonder if its possible to trace down Kubricks "artistic mindset" by examining the works he had out during the timeframe he was supposed to release his holocost movie? (btw, does anyone know if he ever actually NAMED it?? lol)

This is the essence of the reason Spielberg is the audience director, and also the essence of why I like Stan better than Steve.

The idea of Kubrick doing a Holocaust movie is really not all that intriguing to me. I would have been much more interested to see Scorsese's attempt at it.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

I would like to have seen good films about the Holocaust by both Scorsese and Kubrick. But considering the nature of the subject and the styles and previous films of the two directors I'd say that I find it easier to imagine Kubrick doing it rather than Scorsese.