Stanley Kubrick

[Nerd]

He deserves a thread here, doesnt he ??

These are my favourite Kubrick movies, in the order:

1. A Clockwork orange
2. The Killing
3. Dr. Strangelove
4. The shining
5. Full metal jacket
6. Spartacus
7. Lolita
8. 2001: A space odessey
9. Eyes wide shut (Probably his worst movie :oops:)

I havent seen barry lyndon and I ve heard a lot about that masterpiece !! Are there any other Kubrick movies that I had missed ??

[alwarpet_andavan]

Paths Of Glory

[P_R]

I have only watched two films.

The Shining
2001..(yesterday)

The Shining was very spooky in parts but dragged a bit in the others. I wouldn't put it among the scariest I have seen.

I have some very mixed feelings about 2001. I was blown over by the look of it (our star release in '68 was Kudiyirundha Kovil). It is doubtlessly one of the most visually spectacular (to borrow the DVD jacket words) films I have seen.

Symbolism is all very well but I am used to a lot more stuff happening in films. A dramtic story with symbols buried in and around goes very well with me. But a movie that relies, almost completely on the symbols to carry the story forward was too new for me. It denied me the usual black or white response to a film.

It did seem way way longer than in actually is. At some point the lingering breathing in the lonely space stopped appealing. I have heard and read a lot about music in Kubrick's films. My untrained year could recognize the Blue Danube Waltz but it did seem out of place sometimes (for instance after the scenes where the first astronaut is lost and the second is tussling with Hal).

The film is still sinking in. This is a reaction of someone pampered by Kamal and IR. Where the films have something for each of the viewing (to use a threadbare review phrase "appealing at many levels") and the symbols, are sown within the drama. So I am reasonably convinced there was lot more in the movie than what I took home.

How did you guys like it the first time you saw it ?

PS: Kasi, I see you rank it just above EWS, which is what I intended to borrow, till an uncle came home from nowhere and was going to share my room that night. So I didn't want to give him a coronary if he got up for a midnight snack or something :P

[alwarpet_andavan]

PR,
2001 is my favorite Kubrick film. Easily. The opening few minutes are enough! [Not to mention the closing minutes :)].
And you have written about symbols in the TF category. Can you elaborate on 2001 w.r.t symbols? Usually, you seem to observe a lot of stuff i tend to miss :)

2001 makes Star Wars and Spielberg's sci-fi movies look like animated cartoons in comparison.
Oru kelvi. Where and How the fcuk did he shoot the opening sequences?????? I mean, i've never seen anything quite like it.

All this reminds me i should watch it again soon!

[kannannn]

2001.. was sleep-inducing to many of my friends, but I have happy memories of it. As for the typical Kubrick use of classical music, that's what makes the movie so different. And brooding. I know it's bit like our very own Sunday afternoon DD movies, but what kept my jaw hanging were the SFX and the music. That said, the best scene for me was the jump cut from the tool to the space ship. And the dialogues. I would treasure 2001.. just for the exchanges between the crew and HAL.

A_A, If you refer to the ape sequences, I remember the DVD commentary saying that he tried many ideas before coming up with masked extras. Someone can confirm this. (For those wondering how Kubrick managed to make a sci-fi movie so realisitic, watch Tarkovsky's 'Solaris'. To make a sci-fi movie with meagre Governement funds is plain unthinkable. Still he makes it work and how!!).

[Nerd]

2001 is sure an amazing movie. But the genre, Sci-fi is not my cup of tea. I hate movies like star wars, alien etc.., But I would rate 2001 above all those so called sci-fi movies. My order was strictly based upon my preference of genres. Also I love film-noirs for some reason and thats why you can see The Killing at #2. I watched EWS with my brother three months back :oops: :oops: :oops:

[kannannn]

I somehow feel Spartacus doesn't deserve the place it has on the list. It just didn't feel like a Kubrick film. Douglas and the expensive sets dominated the entire film, with no chance for Kubrick to showcase his style. Maybe it was the money that made him go for it.

[alwarpet_andavan]

Nerd,
I absolutely hate sci-fi and Matrix/MI kind of "action" movies too :)
The greatness of 2001 is that it completely arrested even sci-fi haters like me and you!

[P_R]

And you have written about symbols in the TF category. Can you elaborate on 2001 w.r.t symbols? As I said, TF (read Kamal) is completely different. One can watch Mahanadhi as the story of a naive guy who was cheated, his revenge and subam and be completely satisfied. (So it was for me, till I watched it again during my first year of college !)
With 2001 that is just not possible. Here there is no conversation about evolution, tools-and-man, who's the boss and what-next. The whole storytelling is visual. So to try to put into words would be to paraphrase poems. It would neither be tasteful (nor would I be equal to it). So I'll stick to what outline I received from watching the movie.

Even from the first part you see how the ape interacts with other beings. There is an ant-eater (I think it was an ant-eater) that initially seems to cohabit with the apes. (They both run from the leopard). When it looks like the ant-eater competes for food it is chased away with brute force. It finally reaches a stage where the apes fight each other for territories. After the appearance of the monolith the ape-man makes the weapon that helps establish who's the boss. If one is pretty serious one could find material for a huge essay about the internal organization and societal structure etc.

Then we have the beautiful cut that kannannn refers to. Where we go from the simple tool that started it all to the present tool. This tool "contains" man. It creates a whole new environment where he safely sleeps (with no apparent threat to his water hole). But now he needs to play according to the rules of the tool -wear special shoes, eat crazy food or risk floating out of control (like the pen). So even by the time of the lunar mission who-controls-who is an unsettling question.

With the entry of HAL the gloves are off. The mummified experts are virtually kept alive by the system. Just like one would stash away screwdrivers in the shelf till we choose to use them. As things develop HAL's integrity becomes the center of drama. And it becomes a brutal fight when HAL has a goal. When HAL -a supposedly non-emotional creature spells out how the mission is "too important for me to let you jeopardize it", it questions raises questions about the nature of our aspirations. Are they also emotionless pursuits ? Or should we question the nature of emotion ? Or instead fight kill the source of such uncomfortable questions. Man seems to score a point with good-old brute force when he kills HAL with a screwdriver. It still looks as if man can be in control, if he is back to the basic ape-strengths.

There are just too many ways in which to interpret the ending. And anyone disappointed with it may be justifiably accused of refusing to meet the artist half-way. This is a very superficial take. I am sure the movie has people with very intricate theories and detailed philosophical reading into it. People who read into the sequence of colours when the astronaut hits "infinity". But for those of us, who find books like Film Sense by Sergei Eisenstein to be impenetrble fog, this movie still appeals as a string of stunning visuals which have a stronger impact than whatever philosophical argument it tried to showcase.


Where and How the fcuk did he shoot the opening sequences?????? I mean, i've never seen anything quite like it. Truly amazing. 20 minutes before the first line is spoken. And the actors were unbelievable. I can't imagine the response it would have generated in'68.


I remember the DVD commentary saying that he tried many ideas before coming up with masked extras. The DVD I borrowed was one cheap Chinese version. No commentary and hilarious subtitles that do not match what is said on screen. Curious to know what the other ideas were. But those guys pulled of a fanstastic performance.

I was in fact deciding between this and Solaris. But now I am pushing Solaris back a while. I need to watch some historical with thorough drama thrown in ( Throne of Blood :-) )

[Nerd]

Full Metal Jacket:

Sargeant: How tall are you private joker ?
Private Joker: Sir, Five foot nite sir
Sargeant: Five foot nine ! I dint know they stacked sh*t that high

Sargeant: Do you think I am cute ? Do you think I am funny private pyle?
Private Pyle: Sir, no sir
Sargeant: Then wipe that stupid looking grin off your face
Private Plye: Sir yes sir (tries hard but cudnt)
Sargeant: Any ******* time sweetheart
Private Pyle: Sir I m trying Sir
Sargeant: Private Plye, I m gonna give you 3 seconds. 3 ******* seconds to wipe that disgusting grin off your face. Otherwise I ll gouge out your eyeballs and skull-**** you !!

These scenes will be extremely funny when you watch them, the first time. But when you think of it after watching the whole movie you will certainly see a difference !!

[alwarpet_andavan]

Full Metal Jacket:

Sargeant: How tall are you private joker ?
Private Joker: Sir, Five foot nite sir
Sargeant: Five foot nine ! I dint know they stacked sh*t that high

Sargeant: Do you think I am cute ? Do you think I am funny private pyle?
Private Pyle: Sir, no sir
Sargeant: Then wipe that stupid looking grin off your face
Private Plye: Sir yes sir (tries hard but cudnt)
Sargeant: Any ******* time sweetheart
Private Pyle: Sir I m trying Sir
Sargeant: Private Plye, I m gonna give you 3 seconds. 3 ******* seconds to wipe that disgusting grin off your face. Otherwise I ll gouge out your eyeballs and skull-**** you !!

These scenes will be extremely funny when you watch them, the first time. But when you think of it after watching the whole movie you will certainly see a difference !!
:lol:
Yes, the first half is thoroughly funny but yet hard hitting. However, i didn't agree with the director in the 2nd or atleast i'm not sure what Kubrick's stand is...

[alwarpet_andavan]

Full Metal Jacket:

Sargeant: How tall are you private joker ?
Private Joker: Sir, Five foot nite sir
Sargeant: Five foot nine ! I dint know they stacked sh*t that high

Sargeant: Do you think I am cute ? Do you think I am funny private pyle?
Private Pyle: Sir, no sir
Sargeant: Then wipe that stupid looking grin off your face
Private Plye: Sir yes sir (tries hard but cudnt)
Sargeant: Any ******* time sweetheart
Private Pyle: Sir I m trying Sir
Sargeant: Private Plye, I m gonna give you 3 seconds. 3 ******* seconds to wipe that disgusting grin off your face. Otherwise I ll gouge out your eyeballs and skull-**** you !!

These scenes will be extremely funny when you watch them, the first time. But when you think of it after watching the whole movie you will certainly see a difference !!
:lol:
Yes, the first half is thoroughly funny but yet hard hitting. However, i didn't agree with the director in the 2nd or atleast i'm not sure what Kubrick's stand is...

[Nerd]

Watched Eyes Wide shut again this weekend. I should say that I was impressed. Dint like the movie when I watched it for the first time. I think Kubrick is one of those directors whose movies are to be watched multiple times to enjoy each and every bit of it.

The kissing scene in the prostitute's apartment is spellbinding. They both arent naked but the kiss is extremely sensual :oops:

Visual elegance - Kubrick. Barry Lyndon, 2001, EWS are perfect examples of this. His mastery of light, depth and composition is impeccable.

I dint pay much attention to that bhagvat gita verse which was wonderfully sung (by wonder who !!) when the orgy is going on. Added the perfect touch to that scene !!

idhu kaamamaa, kaadhalaa, idhu oru naragamaa :oops:

[alwarpet_andavan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3-lQzfxL8g&mode=related&search=

[Nerd]

Thats a very good compilation :thumbsup:

EWS, last scene:

NK: There is something really important that we need to do as soon as possible.

TC: Whats that ??

NK: ****

:rotfl: :thumbsup:

[kannannn]

The latest issue of 'TIME' carries a conversation between DiCaprio, Damon, Nicholson and Scorsese about 'The Departed' among other things. The discussion veers towards Kubrick (as can be expected). Here are the excerpts:

TIME: Are there any of your own movies you have come back to?
DiCaprio: Scorsese is obsessive about authenticity and minutiae that you may skip the first time, and then - Oh, my God! Slicing the garlic meant something! They weren't just slicing garlic!
Scorsese: Kubric is really the killer. The other night, there it is again - 'The Shining'. What could I do? I had to watch the whole goddam thing :).
DiCaprio: (To Nicholson) I wish you would have worked with Kubrick again, man.
Nicholson: Me too. I'm ashamed to admit it, but the first thought through my mind when I heard that he died was not, Ooooh, Stanley, my dear friend. It was, F---. Not going to get to do another movie with him. I wouldn't have suspected that would have been my reaction, but it's true.

Disclaimer: The emoticon is my insertion and was not expressed by Scorsese.

My question - was DiCaprio's comment on 'garlic slicing' rhetoric or did it feature in any Scorsese's movie?

[VillageGimp]

He deserves a thread here, doesnt he ??

These are my favourite Kubrick movies, in the order:

1. A Clockwork orange
2. The Killing
3. Dr. Strangelove
4. The shining
5. Full metal jacket
6. Spartacus
7. Lolita
8. 2001: A space odessey
9. Eyes wide shut (Probably his worst movie :oops:)

I havent seen barry lyndon and I ve heard a lot about that masterpiece !! Are there any other Kubrick movies that I had missed ??

You've missed out Artifical Intelligence. The opening hour and the last half an hour were masterpiece as Kubrick was directing them.

It was shite as usual in the middle when Spielberg directed the rest.

[alwarpet_andavan]

You've missed out Artifical Intelligence. The opening hour and the last half an hour were masterpiece as Kubrick was directing them.

It was shite as usual in the middle when Spielberg directed the rest.

Kubrick never directed it though it was co-written by him. After Kubrick's death Spielberg modified the screenplay and directed it from scratch

[Nerd]

AI is one of those movies which I had to watch alone(20-30 people is not so many in sippy, THE best theatre in trichy) in the theaters. I was put through two and half hours of boredom and it was extremely sleep inducing. Have never even tried watching it again. Later read somewhere that Kubrick handed over the script to spielberg, though they worked together on in it for many years :o

[nilavupriyan]

You've missed out Artifical Intelligence. The opening hour and the last half an hour were masterpiece as Kubrick was directing them.

It was shite as usual in the middle when Spielberg directed the rest.

Kubrick never directed it though it was co-written by him. After Kubrick's death Spielberg modified the screenplay and directed it from scratch

i also why they dint join the name of kubrick in the imdb direction column if kubrick had done some job in direction!

[VillageGimp]

Kubrick never directed it though it was co-written by him. After Kubrick's death Spielberg modified the screenplay and directed it from scratch

The storyline was Kubrick's which was innovative by itself fand he had stared directing the movie and finished a fair part of the screen play as per the newspapers at the time of his death.

Also he didn't hand over anything to Spileberg as suggested by the above poster. After his death , Spielberg took over , completed the screen play , directed and damaged a major portion of the movie in his own "drama queen" fashion.

[VillageGimp]

Kubrick never directed it though it was co-written by him. After Kubrick's death Spielberg modified the screenplay and directed it from scratch

The storyline was Kubrick's which was innovative by itself fand he had stared directing the movie and finished a fair part of the screen play as per the newspapers at the time of his death.

Also he didn't hand over anything to Spileberg as suggested by the above poster. After his death , Spielberg took over , completed the screen play , directed and damaged a major portion of the movie in his own "drama queen" fashion.

[alwarpet_andavan]

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kubrick#AI:_Artificial_Intelligence_.E2.80 .94_posthumous_completion

2) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index2.html

FALSE: The film was shooting concurrently with EWS in a St. Albans property that used to be a bacon factory that Kubrick had bought and converted in to a studio. Although Chris Cunningham, built robots for Kubrick there and it has been reported that parts of Eyes Wide Shut were indeed shot in the converted bacon factory.
TRUE Contrary to what has been reported here before, Steven Spielberg received over 900 pages of fax-notes from Kubrick, regarding AI. Jan Harlan Kubrick brother in law said to Steve Rose of the Guardian "He and Spielberg spoke all the time," he continues. "I have six or seven years' worth of correspondence between them over AI, which I recently passed over to Spielberg along with over 1,000 drawings." Harlan told Paul Joyce, (3ii) "He said on more than one case - "I think the ideal director for this may be Steven Spielberg. If I do it, it may be too stark. I may emphasise too much the philosophical side.
Harlan maintains that Kubrick would certainly have returned to AI after Eyes Wide Shut. "He had no intention of dying, I assure you. But at one point, Stanley actually said to Spielberg: 'You would be the best guy to direct this film, I'll be the producer.' I can't tell you whether he would have directed it himself or given it to Spielberg. That was still very much a possibility."

3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/678278.stm




Also he didn't hand over anything to Spileberg as suggested by the above poster. After his death , Spielberg took over , completed the screen play , directed and damaged a major portion of the movie in his own "drama queen" fashion.

[Nerd]

Just finished watching Lolita (second time). I dont know but for some reason his movies keep getting better. I wasnt impressed with Lolita the first time and this time I was able to understand a lot of things and it gave me an entirely new dimension on the movie. I would say its extremely underrated at 7.6 in IMDB that is 8-)

[Nerd]

Kubrick's short film Flying Padre (1951)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqTlxRYt7B0

[groucho070]

My question - was DiCaprio's comment on 'garlic slicing' rhetoric or did it feature in any Scorsese's movie?

That scene was featured in Goodfellas, the Paulie character in jail being so meticulous about slicing garlic thin for his pasta sauce. It's not as intense as De Niro watching the fizzy drink in Taxi Driver.

Coming to the topic, anyone has seen The Killing? Nice heist-goes-wrong movie.

I absoloutely adore Kubrick's cinematography. Of course, the best being 2001. I haven't seen Barry Lyndon, Eyes, Lolita and a those earlier than The Killing.

Here's my ranking a few words about them:

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Mindblowing. Thought provoking. Visual treat. Pretty f***ing scary towards the end.

2. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
How you make comedy where at the end the whole world gets blown up. Only Kubrick knows how and you will never see Sellers like this again.

3. The Killing (1956)
Noir-ish heist go wrong movie with Sterling Hayden givinv a performance fitting his first name. Great, fast paced thriller. Kubrick doing something rather 'mainstream' for his taste.

4. The Shining (1980)
Am not a stickler for horror and if this is one hell of a horror movie. Who needs CG monster when you have the one and only Jack Nicholson. That old lady in the bathtub scene not only made me jump, but almost puke. Heard King didn't like this version, though.

5. Paths of Glory (1957)
Early anti-war effort. Great performance from Douglas, brilliant b/w cinematography (walking through the trenches). Definitely not a standard fare to come out of the 50s.

6. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
A kinda followup to Path's of Glory. First part of the movie is pure Kubrick. Second part looks great for a hack and mediocre for Kubrick.

7. Spartacus (1960)
I felt Douglas gave his worst performance. Really wooden. Nice in a epic-sword and sandals way, but nothing from Kubrick. Olivier was good though (snails and oyster, eh?)

8. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Great visuals. Overemphasis on phallic symbolism. Otherwise I don't really know what this film is about. I need to revisit it.

[kannannn]

My question - was DiCaprio's comment on 'garlic slicing' rhetoric or did it feature in any Scorsese's movie?

That scene was featured in Goodfellas, the Paulie character in jail being so meticulous about slicing garlic thin for his pasta sauce. It's not as intense as De Niro watching the fizzy drink in Taxi Driver.
Thanks Groucho :). It's been a real long time since I saw Goodfellas. Should watch again.


Coming to the topic, anyone has seen The Killing? Nice heist-goes-wrong movie.
Yes, Film Noir at it's best. "The Killing" formed the basis for another movie I love - "The Reservoir Dogs". Tarantino lists Kubrick among his other influences in the making of RD.

[thinkfloyd]

6. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
A kinda followup to Path's of Glory. First part of the movie is pure Kubrick. Second part looks great for a hack and mediocre for Kubrick.

That's exactly what i thought....

[VENKIRAJA]

I have only watched two films.

The Shining
2001..(yesterday)

The Shining was very spooky in parts but dragged a bit in the others. I wouldn't put it among the scariest I have seen.

I have some very mixed feelings about 2001. I was blown over by the look of it (our star release in '68 was Kudiyirundha Kovil). It is doubtlessly one of the most visually spectacular (to borrow the DVD jacket words) films I have seen.

Symbolism is all very well but I am used to a lot more stuff happening in films. A dramtic story with symbols buried in and around goes very well with me. But a movie that relies, almost completely on the symbols to carry the story forward was too new for me. It denied me the usual black or white response to a film.

It did seem way way longer than in actually is. At some point the lingering breathing in the lonely space stopped appealing. I have heard and read a lot about music in Kubrick's films. My untrained year could recognize the Blue Danube Waltz but it did seem out of place sometimes (for instance after the scenes where the first astronaut is lost and the second is tussling with Hal).

The film is still sinking in. This is a reaction of someone pampered by Kamal and IR. Where the films have something for each of the viewing (to use a threadbare review phrase "appealing at many levels") and the symbols, are sown within the drama. So I am reasonably convinced there was lot more in the movie than what I took home.

How did you guys like it the first time you saw it ?

PS: Kasi, I see you rank it just above EWS, which is what I intended to borrow, till an uncle came home from nowhere and was going to share my room that night. So I didn't want to give him a coronary if he got up for a midnight snack or something :P

I loved it to the core.I was thinking that he'll finish it up with some dizzy explanation for the monolithic thing.But damn I could do nothing but close my eyes and think about it.The stargate is still in my eyes.Pathbreaking visuals!Something divine.Arthur.C.Clarke...how did you ever think such a thing 40 years ago?As everyone say,the movie gets better every time.Its #3(It was somewhere in 8 or 9 when I watched it for the first time)in my alltime favourites list right now.Maybe next time I would watch it,I'll make it #1.

[ajithfederer]

The only Kubrick movie i have seen is "The shining" !!.

[Bipolar]

Again, Kubrick is another highly overrated director, in my view... I'm sorry folks!!!

Honestly, during my university days, I heard many of my friends fawning over the "genius" of directors like Scorsese, Tarantino, Kubrick, and several others...

Scorsese's films certainly have substance...

But Kubrick was a guy who's ego was too big for his brain... I'm sorry, but he was another major pretender... I'm really sorry...

[Nerd]

Jeez Bipolar, it would be great if you could actually *explain* why Kubrick (and Tarantino) is (are) over-rated :roll:

I think we have explained why Kubrick is a master in the last two pages. It is upto you now!

[Sid_316]

How can Kubrick be over rated?

[thilak4life]

How can Kubrick be over rated?

Athaane. Neraiya pEru "yaarupa avaru"-nu thaan solluvainga.

[Bipolar]

Jeez Bipolar, it would be great if you could actually *explain* why Kubrick (and Tarantino) is (are) over-rated :roll:


Why I think they're over-rated? Simple... I don't find their films entertaining.

I agree, some aspects of Kubrick's film-making were really good - as pointed out before, the cinematography, art direction and set decoration in his films were really good, even outstanding for the time.

But I'm not an artist or an "intellectual"... when I watch a film, I'm looking for entertainment... like Prabhu Ram mentioned, I'm not a big fan of "symbolism"... most of Kubrick's films had me yawning about halfway in, repeatedly checking the time counter to see when the film would end...

[VENKIRAJA]

Jeez Bipolar, it would be great if you could actually *explain* why Kubrick (and Tarantino) is (are) over-rated :roll:


Why I think they're over-rated? Simple... I don't find their films entertaining.

I agree, some aspects of Kubrick's film-making were really good - as pointed out before, the cinematography, art direction and set decoration in his films were really good, even outstanding for the time.

But I'm not an artist or an "intellectual"... when I watch a film, I'm looking for entertainment... like Prabhu Ram mentioned, I'm not a big fan of "symbolism"... most of Kubrick's films had me yawning about halfway in, repeatedly checking the time counter to see when the film would end...

Tarantino is not entertaining?Quite strange.And your signature says "The best form is no form",and you hate Kubrick.So who do you think is entertaining?

[Bipolar]

Dude, no, I don't "hate" Kubrick...

[P_R]

.. like Prabhu Ram mentioned, I'm not a big fan of "symbolism"...
Just to make it clear. I am used to symbolism when buried within the drama of an event filled story. I enjoy it then (as I mentioned in my post: pampered by Kamal and IR).
I completely get what you are saying :-)

[Bipolar]

Just to make it clear. I am used to symbolism when buried within the drama of an event filled story. I enjoy it then (as I mentioned in my post: pampered by Kamal and IR).

Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement!



I completely get what you are saying :-)

Thanks for understanding!!!

[Vivasaayi]

kubrick....aamaaa....borethan except strangelove which is equal to kavundamani senthil kaamedy in terms of entertainment

tarantino?...that fellow personifies entertainmement

[Nerd]

Here is a *boring* scene from Eyes Wide Shut. Perhaps the BEST scene from the movie. The scene is a husband and wife talking for about 15 minutes, just talking, in their bedroom, stoned. The acting, cinematography, audiography, the lighting, the dialogues, the dialogue delivery. Well its boring after all :sigh2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVXpLnBlkFw&feature=related

[crajkumar_be]

Bipolar,
How about 2001? patheengala?
As for me, i can pretend that i "understood" the film, but i don't think i did. Hey, but what the heck, that's besides the point and IMO that's one of the best movies ever made. It's the experience :notworthy:
[Maybe you should try the first half of Full Metal Jacket for some pure entertainment]
Just my karuthukkal...

P.S: To me, ALL his movies were *entertaining*, except Killer's Kiss which i haven't watched

[VENKIRAJA]

Viv. Thanks for the reccomendation!
Enjoyed it!But I woyldn't go that far...making an avatar for it!

[VENKIRAJA]

Paths of Glory parthen.
IMDB-la its rated 43 :shock:
Its nowhere near that.Yeah,I accept that the acting and cinematography were good.But I didn't like it very much and stuff. :roll:

[complicateur]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5739282975440441779

Stanley Kubrick's Boxes

[VENKIRAJA]

//dign.
CR aNNE... just look at our avatars! :notworthy:
//

[Nerd]

Revisited "The Shining". Scariest film I have ever seen, just ahead of "Blair witch". Must have seen it > 10 times and it still is scary. Everything about the film is so perfect - be it the acting or the cinematography or the direction. I used to have problems with the *pace* but now I am convinced that its the film's biggest strength :bow:

[groucho070]

Revisited "The Shining". Scariest film I have ever seen, just ahead of "Blair witch".I would say, "one of the scariest" next to Exorcists. These are the films that made it harder to enjoy other horror films.

[kid-glove]

Revisited "Barry Lyndon" recently. The man can do no wrong. In some sequences, it is deliberately candescent with array of candles. But the overall flow of images (and that's what movies are essentially about, not merely words) is recherche and rich unlike anything I've seen from a Period Piece, except maybe Visconti's 'Il Gattopardo'.

[groucho070]

As per my comment on your FB post, I still have no guts to watch this one. I have all of Kubrick in VCD/DVD but this...oh, and EWO too. The pace would bug me.

[Bala (Karthik)]

and that's what movies are essentially about, not merely words
:exactly: If it were only or merely about words, kadhai ezhudhidalaam

[kid-glove]

As per my comment on your FB post, I still have no guts to watch this one. I have all of Kubrick in VCD/DVD but this...oh, and EWO too. The pace would bug me.

The pace isn't bad at all. The period had to be canvassed with details and length is justified considering the events to be covered and allowed to the audience (hence why it is not comparable to a tiring novel with purple passages and rich descriptions without a sole purpose).

However, the events aren't what we are conditioned to easily appreciate and it's a period quite alien to uninitiated. There aren't many levels easily perceived. One has to stretch to find relevance, politics, allegory, and life lessons if one is willing to. It's like a barbell as against a pillow. With a pillow, we rest in glee. While the former is demanding but also lets muscle grow. This is of that ilk.

But It's demanding than say "Apocalypse Now" (deliberately bring it here as it's a film we both herald in unison). In AN, the length is paced well and palatable sequences. Willard's journey is portrayed as an Odyssey (in that too, its Greek in its determinism & lack of free will) so exotic, and vile, that it symbolizes Vietnam war to right degree. It employs action set-pieces (a-explosion-a-minute in tradition of Irvin Allen :lol: as Coppola claims in the making documentary) and marries enough ironies into it. The self-replication of the country's Pompousness in War, and the Vanity of it all. Disdain through various events in the film could be affixed to the war. Unscrupulous and indifferent Surfing down the beaches, civilian homicide without contempt, reckless bombing of villages, fuddles & weeds to help ride in this insanity parade, the deluding amusement shows (USO) and what not. Particular sequences are done with allegories. Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" and the quote "I love the smell of napalm in the morning..." packs enough punch and equally reveals a lot of the war. And a power-packed denouement (& performance) which serves to mind the Horror of it all.

"Barry Lyndon" is seemingly unknown in its period, setting and ambition, and demands more. A rewarding purpose if one is willing to extract the juice. But the pulp, I maintain, is the visual imagery.

The flow of images should engage, and entertain for the entire length. At risk of sounding like a film theorist, I'd assert films to be stream of pictures with concomitant sound, and thematic, & narrative elements are excuses to sustain interest. The films with good amount of excuse succeeds, and therefore achieves an appreciation of the craft among wider audience. And craft is the production design and planning, and the various influx of elements into the frame.

[groucho070]

Thilak, reading that makes me want to rush out now to get a proper DVD of the film and watch it in big screen TV (the best I can do at the moment) just to enjoy the "pulp" :D .

And while at it (your post) you also further hammered down the essential points, some additional, on the joys of being inside Apocalypse Now. How wonderfully you put in those para the madness and the beauty of the film :notworthy: Thank you, my friend. En arivu kankalai tiranthuvitteergal. I shall hunt the movie down!

*cut to groucho in Colonial Big White Hunter getup complete with hunting rifle, etc making his way into the Heart of Darkness :P

[kid-glove]

:thumbsup:

I'd also recommend "Il Gattopardo" director's cut (185 minutes, but I'm still hunting for 205 minutes version) for the pulp (could be consumed in pieces), with memorable Burt Lancaster performance and its narrative as excuse. Visconti's finesse makes 'Godfather' look cheap (okay I exaggerate), tease '1900' as an over-cooked Marxist ode, and renders "Gone with the wind" kitsch . :D

[Bala (Karthik)]

http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining%20-%20chap%201.html

[kid-glove]

In "Il Gattopardo", there is a ball room sequence which treads without hurry for about 1/3rd of the film. It doesn't rival 'Heaven's Gate - Dance skating' in logistics and ambition, but the scale with which the scene is conceived and showcased. It's a reason why films are made. :notworthy: While it may appear to capture bare aristocracy, it is also a coup de grace of the protagonist's (A Prince) lineage as a symbol of authority. The loss of royal status is accepted, & the acceptance is sad, but comes with better understanding.

As against embracing the bourgeoisie, Visconti presents vivid imagery with its richness, and critiques it. He could have achieved this with words (conversation), but rather takes a route, both subtle & pure to filmmaking. He places a sequence where the peasants and working class work on bare rocks of Sicilian fields, and then cut to enameled ball room with well-dressed royal aristocrats and new entries in the unified system's Military personnel, who are involved in fighting the revolution (Garibaldi's).

The change doesn't impact Sicily. Despite the unification and formation of government, there is a never-ending circle of rich and poor. There is a memorable line said by the Protagonist, who compares the royal clan to the leopard, and the impending change would mean the jackals and the hyenas replacing them, and they would all assume themselves to be 'salt of the earth'.

[kid-glove]

http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining%20-%20chap%201.html

Blocked by Websense. Ootla poi pakkuren. "Shining" is rivaled only by '2001' in terms of varied, & polarized interpretations among Kubrick's works.

[Bala (Karthik)]

[tscii:fba256987c]

http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining%20-%20chap%201.html

Blocked by Websense. Ootla poi pakkuren. "Shining" is rivaled only by '2001' in terms of varied, & polarized interpretations among Kubrick's works.

I will just paste chapitar one here:



CHAPTER ONE
PREPARATION & RESEARCH

Back in late 2006 I wrote my first film analysis article and it was about Stanley Kubrick’s film version of The Shining. I quickly posted a video version of the article on Youtube, which gathered tens of thousands of viewings during early 2007. The feedback varied from gushing applause … to accusations of me having too much time on my hands … to angry accusations regarding controversial themes. It was a good learning experience, because the feedback that came in from that first film analysis video helped me sharpen up my writing and research skills. This helped me to write more comprehensive and plausible analysis of a further sixteen films.

In November of 2007 I updated my analysis of The Shining to correct some errors, add some additional details, and to present some additional themes. The second article was approx fifty percent longer. The updated video has gathered over 10,000 viewings on Youtube and has several thousand more downloads from my website, and this time the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.

Having now written detailed analysis articles for five Stanley Kubrick films, I’ve become much more familiar with the symbolic style he used. Combining this with the hundreds of emails from both fans and critics of my previous articles on The Shining, I now find that the analysis needs updating again. This time however, the length and depth of the analysis will at least triple because the film has turned out to be far more multi-layered and intricate than I ever suspected.

But before cracking on, I’ll first offer some explanatory notes about the methods and sources I have used in writing this article. This is primarily for the benefit of people who are sceptical of film analysis in general or who are specifically sceptical of my personal approach to the subject. There is also a benefit for me in that I won’t have to spend as much time answering the same questions over and over to new readers / viewers. People asking standard questions will be directed to this chapter.

The first point I’d like to make about Kubrick’s method is that from 2001: A Space Odyssey onward he made films that always had at least two separate narratives that would co-exist simultaneously within the same film. Most scenes would serve at least two narrative functions – one would be the more obvious surface narrative and the other narratives would be subliminally communicated. If this seems outrageous then that’s perfectly understandable, as I have not encountered any film outside of Kubrick’s body of work that successfully managed this feat on such an intricate level. Kubrick had developed a unique and complex system to this effect, and it appears that he shared his technique with no one – not even his closest collaborators.

One of the rare examples of Kubrick openly acknowledging a dual narrative in one of his films occurred when he was being interviewed by Jerome Agel. I picked up this quote from page 277 of the biography Stanley Kubrick by Vincent Lobrutto. The quote refers to Kubrick’s phenomenally cryptic sci-fi film 2001: A Space Odyssey, which to my knowledge was the first Kubrick film to feature a dual narrative.

“I don’t like to talk about 2001 too much because it’s essentially a non-verbal experience. It attempts to communicate more to the subconscious and to the feelings than it does to the intellect. I think clearly there’s a problem with people who are not paying attention with their eyes. They’re listening. And they don’t get much from listening to this film. Those who won’t believe their eyes won’t be able to appreciate this film.” – Stanley Kubrick

For a long time audiences and critics have had that nagging feeling of there being something more to Kubrick’s work than was apparent in their initial viewings. They have been compelled to watch his films over and over as if seeking the missing pieces of a conceptual puzzle. Many film analysts have at times broken through parts of the surface narratives, but this has often raised more questions than it has answered. To this effect Kubrick films are some of the most studied works in film history and the interpretations are incredibly varied.

I have personally found that the most important principle in analysing Kubrick’s work is not to try and identify themes based upon a single, irrefutable detail, but to instead identify what I’ll refer to as ‘emergent themes’. By this I mean that the subliminal narratives of a Kubrick film can only be perceived by cross-referencing hundreds of details until a consistent pattern emerges. Individually, each detail can be discredited as either a continuity error or a mere aesthetic choice, “he did it because it looked cool”, but when those details are grouped together they form an unmistakable and undeniable pattern – one that defies the odds of chance. In many cases these emergent themes make even more consistent sense of the film than the surface level script does.

So how do we identify these emergent themes? I’ve found that the most reliable way is to watch a Kubrick film scene by scene and shot by shot, while making very detailed written notes about what you are seeing and hearing on screen. For this article I compiled over fifty pages of hand written observations (in addition to the content of early versions of the analysis article). It was only when I began reading these notes back and grouping them together according to similarity, that many of the new themes made them selves noticeable. It’s a laborious process, but highly rewarding if you have the patience.

Of course, with any kind of subjective study, such as analysing a film, you run a very high risk of imposing patterns upon the work that you expect to see, instead of what’s actually there. To this effect you must seek out not just pattern, but also difference. Contradictory details generally will mean that the pattern you are seeing is mistaken or that the film maker was not consistent in their messages or modes of expression. I’ve found overwhelmingly that the surface narratives of Kubrick’s films carry far more self-contradictory details than the subliminal narratives do. So when your interpretation is making more consistent sense than the surface script, that’s when you know you are breaking the conceptual codes of a Kubrick film.

Another key concept in deciphering subliminal meanings in Kubrick’s work can be described as ‘plausible deniability’ or ‘deniable encryption’. Basically, this means that a message or subliminal code has been disguised within a seemingly circumstantial context. Kubrick was the master of this strategy, as I will demonstrate in this article. For that very reason anybody who doesn’t want to see beyond the easy surface narrative of a Kubrick film will generally be able to pass off his subliminal encoding as something simple and innocent, allowing them to fall back into the comparative comfort and ease of the surface narrative. This allowed Kubrick to plausibly evade explaining his film’s meanings for years. It also means that my descriptions in this analysis must be exactingly specific to bypasses the veil of illusion that Kubrick weaved with such amazing skill. If you are a person who generally dislikes complexity then I suggest you read one or two chapters of this article at a time, giving yourself short breaks to digest the material.

Occasionally I get comments from viewers of my film analysis articles/videos, who say that I’m simply finding hidden meanings in certain films because I am noticing co-incidental patterns and imposing whatever meaning fits. I can understand this perception because I only write articles about films in which I have found hidden meanings. That probably gives the impression that I see all films as being conceptually deep. It’s not the case though. The vast majority of films I‘ve seen appear conceptually shallow and simplistic, despite my familiarity with subliminal encoding techniques. Some examples of films that I have repeatedly been requested to analyze, but in which I haven’t uncovered coherent, consistent or interesting subliminal themes (at least outside of those already written of by many other reviewers) are … Donnie Darko, Memento and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. So I’ll hope you’ll bare this mind if, at times, I appear to be ‘stretching’ to find meaning in The Shining.

It’s also important for the reader to differentiate as to when I’m stating my interpretations as absolute fact and when I’m acknowledging a healthy entertainment of doubt in my own assertions. If you hear me use the words ‘possibly’, ‘could be’, ‘maybe’, ‘in my opinion’, and so on … then please acknowledge that I am only offering ideas for your consideration. That may seem like an obvious point, but many of my more disagreeable email correspondents seem to miss it.

Many people have also asked me for ‘sources’ to back up my interpretations of Kubrick films. The most frequent question asked is “Did Kubrick ever confirm this in interviews?” Of course, for anyone writing about Kubrick, the answer to that question will virtually always be “no”, for the simple reason that Kubrick very rarely did interviews. And when he did, he avoided answering what he called “coneptualizing questions”. Here are some quotes demonstrating how elusive Kubrick was in talking about the meanings of his films.

“I've always found it difficult to talk about any of my films. What I generally manage to do is to discuss the background information connected with the story, or perhaps some of the interesting facts which might be associated with it. This approach often allows me to avoid the ‘What does it mean? Why did you do it?’ questions.” - interview with Michael Ciment about The Shining

“Never! He never talked about the philosophy of the film to us.” – Kier Dullea (actor ‘Dave Bowman’ 2001) p305 Stanley Kubrick by Vincent Lobrutto

“He’d never talk about his movies while he was making them, and he didn’t like talking about them afterward very much … Most of all he didn’t want to talk about their ‘meaning’ … He might tell you how he did it, but never why.” – p71, Kubrick by Michael Herr (co-writer / co-producer of Full Metal Jacket)

“Attempts by writers to examine his life or career in detail were scrutinized and, more often than not, thwarted, usually by the same method. Kubrick would initially agree to co-operate, on condition that he had the right to authorize the text. He would then withhold approval until the deadline passed or the writer lost patience. In 1968 the magazine Books recorded eight hours of conversation under this restriction, but was permitted to use only four sentences.” – p297 Stanley Kubrick: A Biography by John Baxter

“I'm not going to be asked any conceptualizing questions, right? … It's the thing I hate the worst. … The truth is that I've always felt trapped and pinned down and harried by those questions.” - Kubrick interviewed by Tim Cahill for Rolling Stone.

Regarding The Shining, Kubrick did a comparatively detailed interview with Michael Ciment. Although he didn’t directly describe the films meanings, he did provide many comments that support portions of this analysis. Where relevant the Michael Ciment interview will be quoted.

In addition, Kubrick did something quite out of character with The Shining. He allowed a behind-the-scenes documentary to be filmed by his daughter Vivian on the set. This short documentary was personally approved by Kubrick and the footage was apparently selected from hundreds of hours of material. The specific choices of footage that Kubrick allowed into this documentary also support several of the themes in this analysis. Once again these references will be included.

I’ve also read detailed accounts of The Shining’s production history as described in Kubrick biographies written by John Baxter and Vincent Lobrutto. These both feature a variety of cast and crew claims that will be quoted in this article.

An important detail about the film’s initial release is that there was originally an additional scene at the ending, in which Danny and Wendy are visited in a hospital by the hotel manager Mr. Ullman. This ending was seen by the film’s earliest audiences on selected cinemas, but was removed before the wider release. There are some surviving stills from this scene and a variety of written accounts about the scenes content, which also support certain themes identified in this analysis. We’ll return to this topic in later chapters.

In my previous analysis of The Shining I based my interpretation upon the European release of the film, but the US release contains an additional twenty-three mins of footage. This article brings that additional footage into account. In fact several of the additional themes in this article are very difficult to identify in the trimmed down European version.

Kubrick once said that he found it best policy to let his films ‘speak for themselves’. This is true in that almost everything required to uncover the hidden depths of his work are contained within the films, and do not require a verbal declaration from Stanley himself. When he wanted to communicate a theme to the subconscious or to encode it for future generations to unravel, he would make sure the theme infected multiple scenes using dozens of subliminal details. And so The Shining film itself is the primary source for this analysis.

However, there is another source worth mentioning …[/tscii:fba256987c]

[Bala (Karthik)]

[tscii:8f40106997]
“Attempts by writers to examine his life or career in detail were scrutinized and, more often than not, thwarted, usually by the same method. Kubrick would initially agree to co-operate, on condition that he had the right to authorize the text. He would then withhold approval until the deadline passed or the writer lost patience. In 1968 the magazine Books recorded eight hours of conversation under this restriction, but was permitted to use only four sentences.” – p297 Stanley Kubrick: A Biography by John Baxter
:rotfl2:[/tscii:8f40106997]

[kid-glove]

Thanks Bala. Initial glimpse suggests an extensive & detailed analysis. Ippadi than irukkonum. :thumbsup:

[groucho070]

Thanks, Bala. Appuramaa padikkiren.

Thilak, hope this page stays unmoved for me to refer back once I've seen the film.

[Bala (Karthik)]

Thilak/Groucho,
He has also deconstructed Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Big Lebowski and other films. Naanum ellathayum padikkala

[kid-glove]

Oru Book alavukku ezhudhi irupaaru pola.

[VENKIRAJA]

Seems very interesting. ;) His introduction clearly reflects my opinion too, on why Kubrick is the greatest filmmaker on the earth, mars, jupiter, etc. ippudi ellAm sidenote, tangential inferences-nu pOnA, ellArayumE ippdi Great filmmaker-nu sollalAmE type of questions are addressed straight in the face by him. :yes:

[Bala (Karthik)]

[tscii:87e2eb6834]http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6923707.ece


The greatest films never made
Kubrick’s idea of a Napoleon biopic was rejected as too expensive and out of fashion. It’s not the only one in the can

It should have been an epic endeavour that would have dwarfed his other films in both scale and ambition: Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon was the great obsession of the director’s career. A three-hour portrait of the emperor and the man, Napoleon was scheduled to go into production right after the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The young Jack Nicholson was Kubrick’s preferred choice to play the lead; to support him, the director had negotiated the use of a sizeable chunk of both the Yugoslav and the Romanian armies — 50,000 soldiers in all.
Even by Kubrick’s usual standards, the research was exhaustive. He had an index-card file crammed with information about the 50 key characters in the script — in total there were a staggering 25,000 cards. Kubrick even applied a Method approach to his research, adopting some of Napoleon’s more distinctive character traits. He would alternate forkfuls of dessert with his main course, a practice he adopted because it was the way Napoleon ate.
So what happened? Why did Kubrick’s passion project never make it to the screen? The answer is depressingly prosaic. Historical dramas, even spectacularly ambitious historical dramas, were out of fashion at the time. And the formidable budget was deemed by the studios in question to be too much of a risk — even with a director who had repeatedly proved himself at the box office. Napoleon was not to be, but the project lived on in cinema mythology, and, as of this month, in a collector’s edition coffee-table book called Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon: The Greatest Movie Never Made, with a price tag almost as hefty as the film’s original budget.
Kubrick’s unrealised passion project is by no means the only unmade film that exerts a pull on the collective imagination of movie buffs. In fact, you could argue that cinema history has been shaped almost as much by the films that didn’t get made as those that did. Would Terry Gilliam still fight for his vision with the same uncompromising fervour if he hadn’t had several films wrenched away from him at the last moment (the collapse of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote was documented in the film Lost in La Mancha, but Gilliam also tried and failed to bring Mervyn Peake’s Gormenghast to the screen). Orson Welles’s difficult personality is frequently cited as a reason why so many of his pet projects never came to fruition — but without that difficult personality, the ones that were made might not have gone on to shape cinema history in the way they did.
So what is so fascinating about these masterpieces that never were? Is it worth our while even to think about them? The film historian Ian Christie, who will be lecturing on the subject of British “never-mades” at Cinecity, the Seventh Brighton Film Festival, at the end of this month, argues that the subject gives us a valuable insight into the process of film-making. “It takes you into the imagination of the day-to-day work activity of someone like David Lean, for example. More energy is often spent on the ones that don’t get made.”
It’s to be expected that any director will pursue a few ideas that turn into dead ends and a few more that founder in “development hell”. But the ones that become legends are often the ones that might, but for an overly cautious money man, a twist of financial fate or a freak natural disaster, have been great. Films such as David Lean’s last project, an adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s Nostromo, which gradually died as the director’s health failed. Or D. M. Thomas’s The White Hotel, which Bernardo Bertolucci, David Lynch, Terrence Malick, Woody Allen, David Cronenberg and Pedro Almodóvar have all attempted to direct, with stars such as Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes and Anne Hathaway attached.
Then there’s Martin Scorsese, who has numerous struggling passion projects, including a biopic of Dean Martin, one of Frank Sinatra and Silence, a film about the persecution of the Jesuits in medieval Japan — all of which are very far from certain to happen.
As the author of a book on the work of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, Christie says that one of the unmade films he would most like to have seen is Powell’s adaptation of Shakespeare’s The Tempest. “He really thought he had a fantastic idea — it was inspired by all the new ideas about Shakespeare at the time. The cast included James Mason, Mia Farrow, Telly Savalas, Michael York and Frankie Howerd. Gerald Scarfe was going to design it.”
So what went wrong? “Nobody would back it. In the 1960s, if you wanted to make a swinging London film, that was great. But this was the absolute opposite. He had had a big debacle with Peeping Tom in 1960, which everybody reviled. So it was the wrong project, the wrong time and he was the wrong director to try and get something that ambitious off the ground. He kept on coming up with ideas. But in a way it took the wind out of his sails. He couldn’t get this really cherished project off the ground, it made him feel ... not bitter, but terribly disappointed.”
Ian Christie’s lecture Britain’s Lost Cinema, The Ones That Got Away is on Nov 30 at Cinecity, the Seventh Brighton Film Festival (www.cine-city.co.uk)

[/tscii:87e2eb6834]

[groucho070]

Well, that would have been something.

Has anyone seen Brando as Napoleon in Desiree? Oru full fledge biopic-a illama, slice of life romance-a eduttangga. What a waste of talent!! Brando was sleepwalking through it.

Speaking of which, Brando-vum Kubrick-um seernthirunthaal :shock: or maybe :( possibly even :x

[kid-glove]

[tscii]The young Jack Nicholson was Kubrick’s preferred choice to play the lead

Adhu! :mrgreen: Kubrick didn't get along with Brando and they split in Pre-Production of "One eyed jacks".


the director had negotiated the use of a sizeable chunk of both the Yugoslav and the Romanian armies — 50,000 soldiers in all.
Even by Kubrick’s usual standards, the research was exhaustive. He had an index-card file crammed with information about the 50 key characters in the script — in total there were a staggering 25,000 cards.

It would have been mind-boggling to say the least. Here's another interview with Kubrick:


If you can't use the actual battle sites, how will you approximate the terrain on the sites you do choose?

There are a number of ways this can be done an it's quite important to the accuracy of the film, since terrain is the decisive factor in the flow and outcome of a Napoleonic battle. We've researched all the battle sites exhaustively from paintings and sketches, and we're now in a position to approximate the terrain. And from a purely schematic point of view, Napoleonic battles are so beautiful, like vast lethal ballets, that it's worth making every effort to explain the configuration of forces to the audience. And it's not really as difficult as it first appears.

How do you mean "explain"? With a narrator, or charts?

With a narrative voice-over at times, with animated maps and, most importantly, through the actual photography of the battles themselves. Let's say you want to explain that at the battle of Austerlitz, the Austro- Russian forces attempted to cut Napoleon off from Vienna, and then extended the idea to a double envelopment and Napoleon countered by striking at their center and cutting their forces in half -- well, this is not difficult to show by photography, maps and narration. I think it's extremely important to communicate the essence of these battles to the viewer, because they all have an aesthetic brilliance that doesn't require a military mind to appreciate. There's an aesthetic involved; it's almost like a great piece of music, or the purity of a mathematical formula. It's this quality I want to bring across, as well as the sordid reality of battle. You know, there's a weird disparity between the sheer visual and organizational beauty of the historical battles sufficiently far in the past, and their human consequences. It's rather like watching two golden eagles soaring through the sky from a distance; they may be tearing a dove to pieces, but if you are far enough away the scene is still beautiful.

Like a single tracking shot sequence with 50,000 soldiers? :lol: The mind boggles.

A similar project to this was Leone's Leningrad. Apparently he was also planning to employ thousands of extras in a long tracking shot with an already composed Morricone symphony.

[Bala (Karthik)]

By the way, forgot to mention that i got that link through Thilak's FB profile :)

[Bala (Karthik)]

Speaking of which, Brando-vum Kubrick-um seernthirunthaal :shock: or maybe :( possibly even :x
Vadivel (disguised as a woman)
"indha renduthula edhu nadandhaalum olagam azhinjidum" :lol:

[groucho070]

:lol:

[MADDY]

2001: A Space odyssey

its so funny that i started searching for history of sci-fi movies after avatar's release and stumbled upon the greatest of this genre. the synopsis and summaries in IMDB blew me over and when i checked this thread, there were lot of great things written abt it. all these were just warming me up and when i saw the movie ultimately over a DVD, i was just taken apart. i never knew before Hollywood made proper art films, i never knew before Hollywood had Kubrick :D . to reason out evolution of mankind, to predict and depict future technologies precisely is stretching the abilities of our comprehension. the "future world"'s space station was not just a mastur****on of a single man with references to existing world, this was a scientific prediction and depiction of how future world would be and he got it dead right, hasn't he - the video phones, small cameras, space stations resembling our modern day airports etc.....the most authentic/spooky part of this "future world" depiction by Kubrick was the time he set for "manned" jupiter expeditions -2001. though we havent made it yet, it all started in 1973(unmanned trips to jupiter), 5 yrs after this movie's release. and in 1968- where were we - was there a concept of "random access" memory and cache memories even :bow:

to give a narrative that is a assortment of symbols, images, music was very new for me. hardly some 10 dialaaks. the free fall of the expedition into journey of infinite space and time was very spooky to the levels of being scary -- people must have freaked out in 1968 :lol:. the silence and breathing effect of space didn't help either. even the initial ape man scenes were mind blowing and had completely isolated us from time and space. the movie was full of undertones, i couldnt grab many, i feel. contrasting the apes of different groups fighting for water hole and Dr.Floyd rejecting the offer of a drink from men of different space station was too good - idhallavo evolution :lol: . the entry of AI into the movie in the form of HAL was a comical take on evolution, i guess - monkeys controlled their tools, but nowadays tools control man 8-) . giving a character to HAL, pride, control, deceit - talking abt its ambiguity of whether it has any emotions of its own was top notch - yea again, when the world hadnt seen RAM till that time, this was a great depiction 8-) .

BGM was great and it actually help me identify the 3rd monolith bcos the graphics had a quite a bit of problem depicting it. but the non stop waltz after a point of time became irrelevant. Raaja, rahman have spoiled us - u know :P . showing earth,moon and jupiter on almost same scales was a bit odd for a movie of this stature, but its just a minor nitpick. the space craft actually goes near jupiter which is not possible because of electromagnetism of Jupiter - anyways, the first expedition started in 1973 - so fair enuf. thankfully he didn't show aliens and that was a masterstroke i feel - lends so much authenticity and abstractness to the subject. but the biggest disappointment for me in this movie was the ending - showing terrestrial things like bed, food, bathrooms etc in a distant world near jupiter. i expected something more abstract, more un-terrestrial and more ambiguous that is controlling humankind.

the scene where the space-hostess walks around 360 degree circle to enter pilot's cabin freaked me out. i felt ashamed that i had appreciated much lesser works of graphics/camera work. Kubrick, not only must be the greatest directors of all time, but also one of the greatest thinkers of our civilization.

[Sid_316]

I just saw 2001: A Space odyssey ! i was just blown away.Last time i watched i cudnt get past it after the opening sequence :oops: .Maybe i was craving for "Entertaining" stuff. Even though i cudnt understand Some of things i loved it.. i am just not able to describe it.. its the "experience" as bala stated.:P

My question is
Can someone please explain wat happens
towards the end??

Dave travels vast distances and finds himself in a bedroom??where he eats i am just not able to get it.. and also that space child.

And also what's with the noise after the ppl pose in front of the monolith?? is it a warning or some sort??

The opening sequence/HAL/Graphics/camera/art work in genral just blew me apart. BGM was also good.i thought bgm /silence also helped it make it more scarier :O. Just brilliant i hav no other words Just freakin brilliant!

STANLEY KUBRICK :notworthy:

[MADDY]

My question is
Can someone please explain wat happens
towards the end?? Dave travels vast distances and finds himself in a bedroom??where he eats i am just not able to get it.. and also that space child.

as soon he spots third monolith near jupiter, that monolith takes him to "other side of the universe" - something like 4th dimension. that room is supposed to be alien's creation for humans who would come there. some have described it as "human zoo". he ages rapidly (i have serious doubts on this, because the way he eats the meal slowly and relaxed, ageing seems gradual). the final monolith makes him "star child" which gazes upon our earth. thats one step of evolution - i mean its just a star-child, dunno wats in store next for that star-child as it grows :D


And also what's with the noise after the ppl pose in front of the monolith?? is it a warning or some sort??

u mean the 2nd monolith found in moon's crater?? as soon as sun's rays hits the monolith it starts emitting transmission and hence the noise. yes, it is actually communicating to the 3rd monolith in jupiter.

conceptualisation of such order backed with great detailing and authentic research material is work of a colossal genius.

[kid-glove]

It's a cosmical alarm triggered from Moon to iother end of the universe?! The Aliens are kept in check through 'em, I'm sure. They are continually informed on the evolutionary state through large rectangular slabs of some Electro-magnetic intensity and intelligence. Whether this EMI-enable monoliths were not merely monitoring-guards, but also to guide the humans? The EM fields emitted by monoliths definitely impact the apes, and then the men. But I'm not sure if it were programmed to do so, by the Aliens.

[Bala (Karthik)]

Whether this EMI-enable monoliths were not merely monitoring-guards, but also to guide the humans? The EM fields emitted by monoliths definitely impact the apes, and then the men. But I'm not sure if it were programmed to do so, by the Aliens.
That's what i felt that the monolith was a catalyst at every important milestones of evolution

Andha reviewer Alger, he proposes that the monoliths symbolize the actual cinema screen!

[P_R]

:-|
A few months back I was at science museum in St.Louis. One of the sections was about optical illusions, which was fascinating. At one place was a very common illusion which had two figures in one painting which was described. There was an old gentleman next to me who was peering at the painting and said: "I see the old lady, where is the young girl ?". I on the other hand could only see the young girl in the picture and not the old lady. So we tried describing what we saw to each other to help us see the complete picture.
Me: "This is her neck, she is turning the other side..now do you see ?"
Him: No...btw this is the lady's nose...her wrinkled forehead..can you see ?

After sometime I could see both figures. But the old man couldn't. His wife and I tried explaining what we saw but he just didn't get it.

I guess I am the old man in these parts.

Only Strangelove has worked thus far.

[kid-glove]

what about this (http://www.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=13726&start=15)? At least we agree about this (http://www.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=12409).

[kid-glove]

Whether this EMI-enable monoliths were not merely monitoring-guards, but also to guide the humans? The EM fields emitted by monoliths definitely impact the apes, and then the men. But I'm not sure if it were programmed to do so, by the Aliens.
That's what i felt that the monolith was a catalyst at every important milestones of evolution

Andha reviewer Alger, he proposes that the monoliths symbolize the actual cinema screen!

I finished his extensive reading of "Shining" and "The big lebowski". Also the short one on "Pulp fiction". Will read the rest soon..

[VENKIRAJA]

My question is
Can someone please explain wat happens
towards the end?? Dave travels vast distances and finds himself in a bedroom??where he eats i am just not able to get it.. and also that space child.

as soon he spots third monolith near jupiter, that monolith takes him to "other side of the universe" - something like 4th dimension. that room is supposed to be alien's creation for humans who would come there. some have described it as "human zoo". he ages rapidly (i have serious doubts on this, because the way he eats the meal slowly and relaxed, ageing seems gradual). the final monolith makes him "star child" which gazes upon our earth. thats one step of evolution - i mean its just a star-child, dunno wats in store next for that star-child as it grows :D

Regarding rapid ageing, I think you missed it. It takes light years to reach to jupiter.

Trying to work out Myths of the big bang, Evolution of man, cracking the time puzzle, Industrial revolution, Newtonian/Einsteinian physics, Time travel, Extra-terrestrials, artificial intelligence.. man! This has to be the most intricate artistic creation of mankind!

[Anban]

[tscii:022f8d5df1]http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6923707.ece


The greatest films never made
Kubrick’s idea of a Napoleon biopic was rejected as too expensive and out of fashion. It’s not the only one in the can

It should have been an epic endeavour that would have dwarfed his other films in both scale and ambition: Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon was the great obsession of the director’s career. A three-hour portrait of the emperor and the man, Napoleon was scheduled to go into production right after the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The young Jack Nicholson was Kubrick’s preferred choice to play the lead; to support him, the director had negotiated the use of a sizeable chunk of both the Yugoslav and the Romanian armies — 50,000 soldiers in all.
Even by Kubrick’s usual standards, the research was exhaustive. He had an index-card file crammed with information about the 50 key characters in the script — in total there were a staggering 25,000 cards. Kubrick even applied a Method approach to his research, adopting some of Napoleon’s more distinctive character traits. He would alternate forkfuls of dessert with his main course, a practice he adopted because it was the way Napoleon ate.
So what happened? Why did Kubrick’s passion project never make it to the screen? The answer is depressingly prosaic. Historical dramas, even spectacularly ambitious historical dramas, were out of fashion at the time. And the formidable budget was deemed by the studios in question to be too much of a risk — even with a director who had repeatedly proved himself at the box office. Napoleon was not to be, but the project lived on in cinema mythology, and, as of this month, in a collector’s edition coffee-table book called Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon: The Greatest Movie Never Made, with a price tag almost as hefty as the film’s original budget.
Kubrick’s unrealised passion project is by no means the only unmade film that exerts a pull on the collective imagination of movie buffs. In fact, you could argue that cinema history has been shaped almost as much by the films that didn’t get made as those that did. Would Terry Gilliam still fight for his vision with the same uncompromising fervour if he hadn’t had several films wrenched away from him at the last moment (the collapse of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote was documented in the film Lost in La Mancha, but Gilliam also tried and failed to bring Mervyn Peake’s Gormenghast to the screen). Orson Welles’s difficult personality is frequently cited as a reason why so many of his pet projects never came to fruition — but without that difficult personality, the ones that were made might not have gone on to shape cinema history in the way they did.
So what is so fascinating about these masterpieces that never were? Is it worth our while even to think about them? The film historian Ian Christie, who will be lecturing on the subject of British “never-mades” at Cinecity, the Seventh Brighton Film Festival, at the end of this month, argues that the subject gives us a valuable insight into the process of film-making. “It takes you into the imagination of the day-to-day work activity of someone like David Lean, for example. More energy is often spent on the ones that don’t get made.”
It’s to be expected that any director will pursue a few ideas that turn into dead ends and a few more that founder in “development hell”. But the ones that become legends are often the ones that might, but for an overly cautious money man, a twist of financial fate or a freak natural disaster, have been great. Films such as David Lean’s last project, an adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s Nostromo, which gradually died as the director’s health failed. Or D. M. Thomas’s The White Hotel, which Bernardo Bertolucci, David Lynch, Terrence Malick, Woody Allen, David Cronenberg and Pedro Almodóvar have all attempted to direct, with stars such as Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes and Anne Hathaway attached.
Then there’s Martin Scorsese, who has numerous struggling passion projects, including a biopic of Dean Martin, one of Frank Sinatra and Silence, a film about the persecution of the Jesuits in medieval Japan — all of which are very far from certain to happen.
As the author of a book on the work of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, Christie says that one of the unmade films he would most like to have seen is Powell’s adaptation of Shakespeare’s The Tempest. “He really thought he had a fantastic idea — it was inspired by all the new ideas about Shakespeare at the time. The cast included James Mason, Mia Farrow, Telly Savalas, Michael York and Frankie Howerd. Gerald Scarfe was going to design it.”
So what went wrong? “Nobody would back it. In the 1960s, if you wanted to make a swinging London film, that was great. But this was the absolute opposite. He had had a big debacle with Peeping Tom in 1960, which everybody reviled. So it was the wrong project, the wrong time and he was the wrong director to try and get something that ambitious off the ground. He kept on coming up with ideas. But in a way it took the wind out of his sails. He couldn’t get this really cherished project off the ground, it made him feel ... not bitter, but terribly disappointed.”
Ian Christie’s lecture Britain’s Lost Cinema, The Ones That Got Away is on Nov 30 at Cinecity, the Seventh Brighton Film Festival (www.cine-city.co.uk)

[/tscii:022f8d5df1] unga post-oda intention inge makkalukku purialainu nenaikkiren...

we hope ,

Napoleon :: Barry Lyndon = Marudhanaaygam :: Marmayogi

[kid-glove]

Oh :(

[Anban]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5ZdDJov8OY

"Everybody accepts that he is the man..... but even that under rates him "

Stanley Kubrick - A life in pictures

:clap:

[Anban]

saw,

A Clockwork Orange,
Eyes wide shut,
Strangelove,
Barry Lyndon

all in 2 days with some repeated viewings...

Have also seen,
2001: A Space Odyssey before..

nobody here seems to have mentioned THE thing about his movies.. Use of classical music :clap:

[Anban]

Eyes Wide shut is one of the most intense movie i have ever seen.. and that orgy scene is :clap:

[Anban]

my most favourite of his movies thus far is Barry Lyndon... ithu padam mattum alla, oru paadam kooda.. It redefines class all over again...

Clockwork Orange.. classical music usage at its best.. Beethoven's 9th symphony playing in Alex's room.. one of the best footages ever made.. also the intro scene is chanceless.. the movie itself is a kind of ludivico treatment..

[kid-glove]

Always liked the usage of Western classical music. In fact, most of the scenes are choreographed like a piece of music, you cherish the experience.

[kid-glove]

Jack nicholson said that quote. :clap:

Scorsese, Woody Allen, Spielberg. Wonderful combo there.

Wish they got Bergman, Antonioni, etc whose films he quite liked. I'm sure they liked his stuff too. I hope so.

[kid-glove]

my most favourite of his movies thus far is Barry Lyndon... ithu padam mattum alla, oru paadam kooda.. It redefines class all over again....

:notworthy:

Each still image, that is all 25 frames every second, is like a painting in itself.

Usage of WCM - Schubert Trio E-Flat is very interesting in this philum (http://www.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=2015538) Lovely !

[VENKIRAJA]

nobody here seems to have mentioned THE thing about his movies.. Use of classical music :clap:

This is the beauty about Kubrick. I'm more into form-oriented designs, frames, angles, camera tricks, art direction, lighting and such stuff. It seems to me the man has mastered this fraction of movie-making. ungaLukku music. Beautiful term, this one - Kubrickesque.

[Anban]

I just saw 2001: A Space odyssey ! i was just blown away.Last time i watched i cudnt get past it after the opening sequence :oops: .Maybe i was craving for "Entertaining" stuff. Even though i cudnt understand Some of things i loved it.. i am just not able to describe it.. its the "experience" as bala stated.:P

My question is
Can someone please explain wat happens
towards the end??

Dave travels vast distances and finds himself in a bedroom??where he eats i am just not able to get it.. and also that space child.

And also what's with the noise after the ppl pose in front of the monolith?? is it a warning or some sort??

The opening sequence/HAL/Graphics/camera/art work in genral just blew me apart. BGM was also good.i thought bgm /silence also helped it make it more scarier :O. Just brilliant i hav no other words Just freakin brilliant!

STANLEY KUBRICK :notworthy: HAL's characterisation.. :clap: .

open the pod bay door HAL..


the astronaut tumbling away into space.. the star gate sequence to show the 3+dimensions in space..

the ape's bone turning into a space ship..

[MADDY]

Trying to work out Myths of the big bang, Evolution of man, cracking the time puzzle, Industrial revolution, Newtonian/Einsteinian physics, Time travel, Extra-terrestrials, artificial intelligence.. man! This has to be the most intricate artistic creation of mankind!

:exactly: its 'the' most overwhelming concept i have ever read/seen/heard in a work of fiction - i mean, a parallel explanation to Darwin's evolution theory is sheer chancelessness :bow: .....if Roja was the first monolith in my life, then 2001 is the second monolith in my own evolution :lol:

reg music, the non-stop waltz in 2001 got a bit tiring and it feels a bit bland with Beethoven in A clockwork orange :oops: .......maybe WCM is not my cup, maybe im more at home with IR's tweaking of WCM but got to accept that i have been spoiled by raaja and rahman......i always look for a BGM with diverse genres exhibiting varied sound tones within a single film.......i would like to have Bala's word on this becos we share the same thought that range of raaja/rahman is something unparalleled :)

[Anban]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8vq9RwYJKM&feature=related

what a trailer !

[rangan_08]

Breath-taking, classic, nice Compilation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6RzJFwDE_8)

[VENKIRAJA]

Breath-taking, classic, nice Compilation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6RzJFwDE_8)

Stunning :ty:

[kid-glove]

A Clockwork orange - emotionally draining every time we watch it

And what's great about all this is the emotional distancing with which the lens coldly observes DeLarge. It has something to say about humanity, fascistic desires, dystopia, correctional treatments, and the reversal of identities. All along, I don't know if it's really 'emotionally resonant', but I'm sure as hell certain it's great cinema.

[VENKIRAJA]

Alas my faith in hub is restored.

:P


P.S: Somebody please come and disprove the acclaim enjoyed by Strangelove.

-1

Only Kubrick movie that I watched and didn't like.

[jaiganes]

Alas my faith in hub is restored.

:P


P.S: Somebody please come and disprove the acclaim enjoyed by Strangelove.

-1

Only Kubrick movie that I watched and didn't like.
but whyyyyyyy????
idhukku badhil solliye aaganum ..

[VENKIRAJA]

but whyyyyyyy????
idhukku badhil solliye aaganum ..

Didn't find it funny. Reason enough, I think. Also, I wasn't interested by any character at all. pArthu mudikkaNumEnnu pArthEn.

[P_R]

Only Kubrick movie that I watched and didn't like. For a long time 'it was the only Kubrick movie I watched and did like' :-)

[Vivasaayi]

Only Kubbrick movie that I found really entertaining is Strangelove.

Hilarious !...

[P_R]

Vivs also watch 'the killing'

[VENKIRAJA]

Vicky.. I think we were discussing ACWO long ago on phone. Also, I never watched another Kubrick movie after Paths of glory and Strangelove. Both movies I didn't find as engaging as ACWO, 2001, Shining, etc.

[Vivasaayi]

Vicky.. I think we were discussing ACWO long ago on phone. Also, I never watched another Kubrick movie after Paths of glory and Strangelove. Both movies I didn't find as engaging as ACWO, 2001, Shining, etc.

yep..I remember!:) I sort of hate this metaphorical movies especially if that was a socio political commentary. You may argue Strangelove is also a political sattire..but then this is a straight forward movie.

2001 space odyssey was definitely interesting...but not entertaining..I was waiting for the climax..which was not the case with strangelove..where I wished that the movie will go on and on and on.

Spartacus ...again not a boring..pretty interesting..but not entertaining

Shining...I dint watch it beyond 30 minutes

[Vivasaayi]

Vivs also watch 'the killing'

ogay!

[kid-glove]

The kissing scene in the prostitute's apartment is spellbinding. They both arent naked but the kiss is extremely sensual :oops:

Counterpointed to the dispassionate sex b/w husband & wife .

[rajkumarc]

Superb thread... just spent time reading all the posts. Shining was the only Kubrick movie I watched without realizing who Kubrick was. I have to revisit that again and the other Kubrick movies listed by you guys here. I'm most intrigued by the posts on 2001 and will probably get to watch that first.