Page 7 of 9

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:58 am
by Keepcoolbutcare
RogueScribner wrote:but Spielberg is coming up from behind!


man, that's nearly exactly what I think when I see his "endings" lately...here comes Spielbergo, rapin' my ass yet again :P !

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:06 am
by The Vicar
Now its Kubrick & Speilberg, at 7 & 7.
Thanks to me voting for Kubrick.
Who will break the tie?
This is fun.

Can we vote for Speilbrick?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:35 pm
by Pacino86845
I borke the tie!!!

BAHAAHAAHHAAHHAA!!!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:42 pm
by brendonconnelly
Who do I have to blow to get Spielberg and Scorsese replaced with Terry Gilliam and John Lasseter?

Not just in this poll, but on all future movie projects too.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:43 pm
by HollywoodBabylon
OK, so the great Nordic Swede didn't make the cut.
I'll live with that.
So....out of those left chasing that final accolade I'm casting my vote in the direction of Hitchcock, though just. Kurosawa and Kubrick run him a close 2nd & 3rd respectively, with Marty an honorable 4th and Spielberg a respectable fifth.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:06 pm
by tapehead
Took marty after the Locke-down
these polls are a tough business

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:54 pm
by havocSchultz
whoo-hoo!!! hitchcock pulls into the lead!!!!!
Image

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:57 pm
by RogueScribner
Kubrick and Spielberg are neck and neck, followed closely by Hitchcock and Scorsese, with Kurosawa pulling up the rear. Kubrick and Spielberg hustle like crazy, clashing like the titans they are. Scorsese calls in some favors to take out Hitchcock, but Hitchcock pulls the double-cross! Scorsese stumbles and Hitchcock takes third! Kubrick's motto is "slow and steady wins the race," and he has more endurance than any of our athletes here, folks. Spielberg slips a little, his Oscar-grubbing ego disrupting his equilibrium. Hitchcock sneaks up behind Spielberg . . . and smashes his head in with one of his own Oscars! Oh, I don't believe this turn of events folks! Scorsese beams, wishing he had done that! Kurosawa polishes his sword. Spielberg falls to third while Hitchcock waddles up to second place behind Kubrick. Kubrick senses danger and calls for another take, but the judges won't have it. Hitchcock is breathing heavy, he's really red in the face, but he won't give up! Spielberg still won't let go of his Oscars, while Scorsese vainly attempts to catch up. Kurosawa is still polishing his sword. It's Kubrick and Hitchcock neck and neck now. Could this studly little British man actually pull into first place? He's huffing, he's puffing, I don't think he's gonna make it, folks! But wait, what's this? A bit of the sunlight is fading away. There are no clouds in the sky, there's no eclipse, this is very strange indeed. Oh my god, it can't be! A swarm of birds is pecking the eyes out of the competition! Only Hitchcock is immune! Hitchcock gains the lead! It's the upset of upsets! The crowd boos, but Hitchcock giggles like a madman! The contestants round the final turn. Who will win the race? Stay tuned!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:02 pm
by The Vicar
Jock itch?
Chaffing?
Rash?
Cruex!!

And now, back to our show...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:05 pm
by John-Locke
Looks like King Kubrick is ready to take his crown, if you havent't alreadt voted on the final now is yor chance to make a difference.

Kurosawa and Scorsese look out of the running but any of the other three could take the crown.

VOTE.

You know it makes sense.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:13 pm
by doglips
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
RogueScribner wrote:but Spielberg is coming up from behind!


man, that's nearly exactly what I think when I see his "endings" lately...here comes Spielbergo, rapin' my ass yet again :P !


LOL! The perfect a set up!

I voted Spielberg.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:24 pm
by ZombieZoneSolutions
Image

ALL HAIL KING KUBRICK!!!

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:40 pm
by Flumm
I just don't have the proccessing power to work it out. I can not choose. I just can not. Who's better than who? Who's the greater genius? Who cared more? Who levitated beyond the boundires of their craft? Of themselves? There can be no way for me to discern such a thing. Alas I am free from the binds of subjectivity, but crippled by the inadaquacy of logic.

:x

So I'm announcing myself as a vote for hire. Want your guy to win? My vote is yours for the taking. The most interesting post, the most compelling arguement, the most inventive, incisive, irrelevent information is all valid.

Convince me.

:o

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:42 pm
by doglips
Well Zombie went for Peter Jackson, so he obviously found the choice way to difficult.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:44 pm
by colonel_lugz
Vote Spielberg or else!

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:53 pm
by ZombieZoneSolutions
thedoglippedone wrote:Well Zombie went for Peter Jackson, so he obviously found the choice way to difficult.


WTF? I voted for KUBRICK!

(That pic was KUBRICK.)

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:55 pm
by doglips
I know, I thought I'd try the joke without the wink emoticon......

Bad judgment by me as usual.......

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:00 pm
by ZombieZoneSolutions
thedoglippedone wrote:I know, I thought I'd try the joke without the wink emoticon......

Bad judgment by me as usual.......


Don't toy with my emotions like that! :wink:

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:20 pm
by John-Locke
Flumm wrote:I just don't have the proccessing power to work it out. I can not choose. I just can not. Who's better than who? Who's the greater genius? Who cared more? Who levitated beyond the boundires of their craft? Of themselves? There can be no way for me to discern such a thing. Alas I am free from the binds of subjectivity, but crippled by the inadaquacy of logic.

:x

So I'm announcing myself as a vote for hire. Want your guy to win? My vote is yours for the taking. The most interesting post, the most compelling arguement, the most inventive, incisive, irrelevent information is all valid.

Convince me.

:o


Without 2001 Sci-Fi wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today, there would have been no Johnny 5 if HAL didn't pave the way for free thinking Artificial intelligence on the rampage.

Therefore without Kubrick bringing it to the screen you would never have been concieved, Kubrick is you Lord and creator, he is you GOD.

Bow before your King Flummage, he is wise and merciful, show him tribute by giving him your greatest gift, VOTE KING KUBRICK.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:22 pm
by havocSchultz
yes... but hitchcock gave you PURE BEAUTY frozen in time forever...
Image

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:27 pm
by John-Locke
I'd give HER a pearl necklace ;)

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:31 pm
by havocSchultz
arguably - nobody seemed to capture a women's beauty like hitchcock could... no matter the situation... they always looked so much more beautiful than anybody else could've imagined... not the reason he's the greatest... just an added bonus... :D

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:04 pm
by wonkabar
Spielberg voted Kubrick

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:52 pm
by RogueScribner
Vote Hitchcock. He could make films quick and easy and still be brilliant. Kubrick had to work at it!!! :P

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:55 pm
by DennisMM
Scorsese did more for "reality" than any director in the last 50 years, and he's gained great technical skill during his career. I respect some of the others more in their own ways, but Scorsese tells me more about being human than Spielberg, Hitchcock and Kubrick combined.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:01 pm
by RogueScribner
Which director has had the most effect on his audience? There are people who still refuse to take showers after seeing Psycho. All I learned from Spielberg was not to trust the government, from Kubrick to assume everyone was evil, and from Scorsese that I can be as evil as everyone else. In a word: we all suck. But Hitchcock made me believe that that people could be good and noble and still come out on top, that only people who let themselves be corrupted will suffer at the hands of fate and that's a lesson worth taking home with you. :)

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:06 am
by Keepcoolbutcare
thedoglippedone wrote:
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
RogueScribner wrote:but Spielberg is coming up from behind!


man, that's nearly exactly what I think when I see his "endings" lately...here comes Spielbergo, rapin' my ass yet again :P !


LOL! The perfect a set up!


yeah, it was just so damned EASY, and I knew some other putz would've done the same.

Rogue's been on fire lately, either with the one-liners followed by a razz, the in-depth and well written analysis, AND the set-ups.

I went with Kurosawa. More successful at jumping genres than some of the others, made a lot of films, they all had MEANING, was an innovator, always got remarkable performances from his cast...but really, as Flumm basically said, they're all great.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:15 pm
by HollywoodBabylon
I was torn between the big three (Hitch, Kurosawa and Kubrick) but just went with Alfred mainly because he was one of the few directors who married huge popular success with an incrediable artistic creativity....his films were quite profound statements (on the whole) about the human condition (ie. the good and evil within us all. Yikes!)....he had an extremely long and productive career.... and because his influence is undeniable....and though all those listed have those qualities too, I think Hitch had it just that little bit more.

But it was a tough call.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:40 pm
by magicmonkey
magicmonkey wrote:Well, I voted. I thought long and hard, but ultimately there was no question about it. Kubrick.

No matter what mood I'm in, he has a film for me. No matter how many times I've watched his films there is always something to look out for or pay closer attension to. The dude was a craftsman.

His films are instantly recognisable as his work. He puts alot of time and effort into his films and it shows, it leaks out of the screen, everything is composed, sculptured almost. Sure, Hitchcock had his own style and trademarks, but it could easily be argued that ultimately he was all style without substance, but hey, what style he had!

Kubrick delivered substance in spades, he didn't take sides, he didn't point out that someone is particularly heroic or evil, but just as a product of who they are, he knows we're all fallible, so when he does put something "warm" in his films it means something. Just check out "Paths of Glory", see Kirk Douglas defend humanity in the face of violent conflict, power struggles and corruption, then see the product of his struggle, the soldiers jeering almost heartbreakingly at a captured German girl, before weeping as she sings.

If you like your independents and you like your blockbusters, then Kubrick is your man. The dude IS without a "Shadow of a doubt"(heh) the greatest director eva!!!!!1111111


Yes... guess who I voted for.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:13 pm
by Peven
Hitch is the man. and Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today. even though Hitch worked further in the past than Kubrick i think his influence is more prevelant on modern day cinema than Kubrick, who was more of a niche director. i don't think think there is much doubt that Hitch had more range in regard to subject material he directed, whereas Kubrick seemed to be repeating the same message over and over only using different settings/characters to do so. man is flawed, man is flawed, man is flawed. yeah, we got it Stan, man is flawed, move on already.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:25 pm
by ZombieZoneSolutions
Peven wrote:Hitch is the man. and Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today. even though Hitch worked further in the past than Kubrick i think his influence is more prevelant on modern day cinema than Kubrick, who was more of a niche director. i don't think think there is much doubt that Hitch had more range in regard to subject material he directed, whereas Kubrick seemed to be repeating the same message over and over only using different settings/characters to do so. man is flawed, man is flawed, man is flawed. yeah, we got it Stan, man is flawed, move on already.


Man, you really don't like Kubrick. Did he kill your dog or something?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:30 pm
by Adam Balm
Peven wrote:Hitch is the man. and Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today. even though Hitch worked further in the past than Kubrick i think his influence is more prevelant on modern day cinema than Kubrick, who was more of a niche director. i don't think think there is much doubt that Hitch had more range in regard to subject material he directed, whereas Kubrick seemed to be repeating the same message over and over only using different settings/characters to do so. man is flawed, man is flawed, man is flawed. yeah, we got it Stan, man is flawed, move on already.


Whereas Hitchcock's profound message in his work was: "Boo! Scared ya didn't I?"

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:36 pm
by John-Locke
Peven wrote:Hitch is the man. and Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today. even though Hitch worked further in the past than Kubrick i think his influence is more prevelant on modern day cinema than Kubrick, who was more of a niche director. i don't think think there is much doubt that Hitch had more range in regard to subject material he directed, whereas Kubrick seemed to be repeating the same message over and over only using different settings/characters to do so. man is flawed, man is flawed, man is flawed. yeah, we got it Stan, man is flawed, move on already.


Trying to proclaim your choice is the greatest by rubbishing the competition?

Thats the sort of thing a politician would do in the run up to an election.

Real Classy.

;)

How's about just telling us what you think makes Hitch the greatest instead of getting into a mud slinging contest.

Hitch was a voyeuristic pervert anyway.



:twisted:

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:44 pm
by Peven
Hitch could do a lot more than just say "boo!". A LOT more. and i don't hate Kubrick either, i just think he is over-rated. when i was 20 i thought "A Clockwork Orange" was the shit. at 38 i see it as something closer to intellectual masturbation. pretentious. just what is he saying? aside from man and modern society is flawed, that is. and that sums up a lot of Kubrick's work, imo. Kubrick ends up coming across to me as sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the the time while never presenting a viable alternative. Kubrick was all problems and no solutions in his presentation, his outlook, and i prefer something more along the lines of John Lennon's, no problems only solutions, outlook. it has to do with a way of looking at life. when i was younger, it was easier to be cynical and pessimistic and judgemental about everything, but at this stage of my life i see things differently, and Kubrick doesn't seem nearly as deep, enlightening, or cool as he was to me 15 years ago. Hitch, on the other hand, continues to entertain me when i watch his stuff. laughter, suspense, fear, love, etc, were all a part of his palate, and he used them to create his films the way a painter uses pigments on a canvas.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:46 pm
by Fried Gold
Peven wrote: Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today.


For example?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:48 pm
by thomasgaffney
John-Locke wrote:Hitch was a voyeuristic pervert anyway.


You say that like it's a bad thing...

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:49 pm
by Peven
sorry if i come across as slinging mud at Kubrick, Locke. merely using the standard compare/contrast method to state why i chose Hitch over Kubrick, who happens to be #1 in the voting at present.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:50 pm
by Adam Balm
Peven wrote:Kubrick ends up coming across to me as sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the the time while never presenting a viable alternative.


Well, that's because art presents you with questions. Something that provides the questions and the answers is called propaganda. If you want to be told what to think or what conclusion to come to, then I suppose Kubrick isn't your guy.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:51 pm
by Peven
Fried Gold wrote:
Peven wrote: Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today.


For example?


see, that was a joke. since i find "2001" to be slow and boring for the most part. wow, tough crowd, lol

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:53 pm
by thomasgaffney
Peven wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:
Peven wrote: Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today.


For example?


see, that was a joke. since i find "2001" to be slow and boring for the most part. wow, tough crowd, lol


Or bad joke. Ba Dum Bum! :wink:

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:56 pm
by Peven
Adam Balm wrote:
Peven wrote:Kubrick ends up coming across to me as sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the the time while never presenting a viable alternative.


Well, that's because art presents you with questions. Something that provides the questions and the answers is called propaganda. If you want to be told what to think or what conclusion to come to, then I suppose Kubrick isn't your guy.


sure, art is there to present questions, but it can also present alternatives, solutions, and that isn't necesarily propaganda either. you don't have to ram an idea down someone's throat to put it out there for people to digest and decide if it works for them. creating art that presents hope and optimism, or simply more balanced in its presentation of good and evil, is no less artistic than or credible than material that is purely critical and cynical. simply ciritcizing everything around you without presenting a viable alternative, leaving THAT up to others, is a cop out to me.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:59 pm
by Peven
thomasgaffney wrote:
Peven wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:
Peven wrote: Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today.


For example?


see, that was a joke. since i find "2001" to be slow and boring for the most part. wow, tough crowd, lol


Or bad joke. Ba Dum Bum! :wink:


ok, when i say "joke", i mean it in a very broad sense of the term, you see, i was being ironic, portraying the hoplessness of mankind's quest for humor when it is held back by its own inherent crass self-serving nature which inevitably drags it down into despair.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:00 pm
by John-Locke
Peven wrote:sorry if i come across as slinging mud at Kubrick, Locke. merely using the standard compare/contrast method to state why i chose Hitch over Kubrick, who happens to be #1 in the voting at present.


It's all good Peven, nothing like a little debate tp get the juices flowing.

I just couldn't bring myself to criticise any of the people on the poll too much, I have too much respect for all of them unless The Terminal or The Aviator are being talked about, then the gloves come off.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:04 pm
by ZombieZoneSolutions
Peven wrote:
Adam Balm wrote:
Peven wrote:Kubrick ends up coming across to me as sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the the time while never presenting a viable alternative.


Well, that's because art presents you with questions. Something that provides the questions and the answers is called propaganda. If you want to be told what to think or what conclusion to come to, then I suppose Kubrick isn't your guy.


sure, art is there to present questions, but it can also present alternatives, solutions, and that isn't necesarily propaganda either. you don't have to ram an idea down someone's throat to put it out there for people to digest and decide if it works for them. creating art that presents hope and optimism, or simply more balanced in its presentation of good and evil, is no less artistic than or credible than material that is purely critical and cynical. simply ciritcizing everything around you without presenting a viable alternative, leaving THAT up to others, is a cop out to me.


The thing is that he doesn't ram ideas down your throat. He has an
uncanny ability to present a completely objective view that doesn't
provide easy answers. One of the best examples of this is Full
Metal Jacket. I have heard both pro-war and anti-war people
extol its virtues. I don't think I have ever seen a filmmaker be able
to pull that off.

You are mistaking objectivity for cynicism.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:07 pm
by RogueScribner
Why can't we all just get along? :P


Question and if the answer already has been established feel free to lash me with a wet noodle, but since we're obviously attempting to come to a Zone consensus on this topic, is there a point at which the poll will be closed and the winner declared?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:45 am
by Pacino86845
John-Locke wrote:I just couldn't bring myself to criticise any of the people on the poll too much, I have too much respect for all of them unless The Terminal or The Aviator are being talked about, then the gloves come off.

Say what?

I thought The Aviator was good!

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:44 am
by HollywoodBabylon
I think the difference between Kubrick and Hitchcock is that the former took a layered, intellectual approach to the art of filmmaking whilst the latter was an unapologetic populist who - like John Ford - did not regard either himself or his films as being other than entertainments. He had no time for the auteur approach or any intellectulisation about his movies, even though most of them are shot through with all types of complex motifs on the nature of the human character, human sexuality, the constraints of society upon such individuals and the complex emotions that arise from those issues.

I can see why some regard Hitchcock as nothing more than an elaborate bag of tricks. Boo-hoo! Scared you! and nothing more. But I think they're wrong and misguided in that assumption. Hitch was a deceptively erudite director capable of asking the most profound questions about humanity. What is the nature of good and evil? Why drives people to extremes?
What governs our consciousness or subconsciousness? Are our minds a battle between how we should behave and how we want to behave?
He managed to ask some deep questions within his populist movies, these mere entertainments.
Better still, he sometimes never answered them.
That was no mean feat.

Kubrick was a master, to be sure. Yes, he could be overly self-conscious and calculating towards his work, but he had a singular approach to cinema and even his failures ('Barry Lyndon' most notably - and the second half of 'Full Metal Jacket') are better than most directors finest. I admire Kubrick more than anything else for sticking to his own vision of what he thought cinema should be. Perhaps that's why his movies had and continue to have such an influence.
A bit like Hitchcock, infact.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:53 am
by Peven
ZombieZoneSolutions wrote:
Peven wrote:
Adam Balm wrote:
Peven wrote:Kubrick ends up coming across to me as sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the the time while never presenting a viable alternative.


Well, that's because art presents you with questions. Something that provides the questions and the answers is called propaganda. If you want to be told what to think or what conclusion to come to, then I suppose Kubrick isn't your guy.


sure, art is there to present questions, but it can also present alternatives, solutions, and that isn't necesarily propaganda either. you don't have to ram an idea down someone's throat to put it out there for people to digest and decide if it works for them. creating art that presents hope and optimism, or simply more balanced in its presentation of good and evil, is no less artistic than or credible than material that is purely critical and cynical. simply ciritcizing everything around you without presenting a viable alternative, leaving THAT up to others, is a cop out to me.


The thing is that he doesn't ram ideas down your throat. He has an
uncanny ability to present a completely objective view that doesn't
provide easy answers. One of the best examples of this is Full
Metal Jacket. I have heard both pro-war and anti-war people
extol its virtues. I don't think I have ever seen a filmmaker be able
to pull that off.

You are mistaking objectivity for cynicism.


"Full Metal Jacket" is a very good film in regard to its portrayal of a soldier's experience in the military during that time, and i agree that it presents an objective pov. because of that it is popular among both gung-ho bloodlusters and peace freaks alike. imo, though, a war film like "The Deer Hunter" is a far superior film precisely because it isn't as safe, middle of the road, coldly objective as "Full Metal Jacket".

this is all subjective stuff, some people don't like art to say anything, don't want it to have an opinion, and prefer it to be nothing more than a dispassionate mirror. i am not one of those people. to me, art is an expression of human emotion and experience, the particular pov of the artist, the manifestation their own human experience on film, canvas, music, etc. it is through that specific, personal expression that, imo, people are able to make a connection to others, to find a greater understanding and empathy for their fellow human beings.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:59 am
by John-Locke
How is Barry Lyndon a failure? I know you don't like the casting of Ryan O'Neal (who I think played the part of a scoundrel bastard very convincingly) and you feel it's too long (I admire it's slow pace) but I can't see why you would call it a failure, it's my second favourite of his films behind Strangelove and one of the greatest films ever made in my opinion.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:49 pm
by ZombieZoneSolutions
Peven wrote:
ZombieZoneSolutions wrote:
Peven wrote:
Adam Balm wrote:
Peven wrote:Kubrick ends up coming across to me as sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the the time while never presenting a viable alternative.


Well, that's because art presents you with questions. Something that provides the questions and the answers is called propaganda. If you want to be told what to think or what conclusion to come to, then I suppose Kubrick isn't your guy.


sure, art is there to present questions, but it can also present alternatives, solutions, and that isn't necesarily propaganda either. you don't have to ram an idea down someone's throat to put it out there for people to digest and decide if it works for them. creating art that presents hope and optimism, or simply more balanced in its presentation of good and evil, is no less artistic than or credible than material that is purely critical and cynical. simply ciritcizing everything around you without presenting a viable alternative, leaving THAT up to others, is a cop out to me.


The thing is that he doesn't ram ideas down your throat. He has an
uncanny ability to present a completely objective view that doesn't
provide easy answers. One of the best examples of this is Full
Metal Jacket. I have heard both pro-war and anti-war people
extol its virtues. I don't think I have ever seen a filmmaker be able
to pull that off.

You are mistaking objectivity for cynicism.


"Full Metal Jacket" is a very good film in regard to its portrayal of a soldier's experience in the military during that time, and i agree that it presents an objective pov. because of that it is popular among both gung-ho bloodlusters and peace freaks alike. imo, though, a war film like "The Deer Hunter" is a far superior film precisely because it isn't as safe, middle of the road, coldly objective as "Full Metal Jacket".

this is all subjective stuff, some people don't like art to say anything, don't want it to have an opinion, and prefer it to be nothing more than a dispassionate mirror. i am not one of those people. to me, art is an expression of human emotion and experience, the particular pov of the artist, the manifestation their own human experience on film, canvas, music, etc. it is through that specific, personal expression that, imo, people are able to make a connection to others, to find a greater understanding and empathy for their fellow human beings.


I'm having a hard time trying to pin down your point of view.

Earlier on you said that you disliked Kubrick because you thought
watching his films was tantamount to being sermonized to; preached
to:

Peven wrote:am i the only one who feels like someone in the pews being preached down to while watching a Kubrick film?


Now you are saying that you want to be preached to? Told
what to felt? I'm sort of confused as to your actual point of view.

I mean, I understand and accept the fact that you don't like Kubrick,
but your reasons for disliking his films aren't consistent. It seems
your dislike of his work is more based on emotional reactions than
critical or formalistic ones. First you say its because he's too didactic
or preachy, then its because he's too objective? Which is it? Because
it can't be both.

And being objective is far from being "safe". Safe is holding people's
hands and stroking their heads and telling them what to think, rather
than leaving that up to the viewer. I find the didactic, preachy method
you seem to prefer to be rather condescending. Which is why I love
Kubrick; his objectivity puts the onus on the viewer to use their
critical and intellectual faculties to find their own answers.

What you seem to be saying is that you want to be coddled and led.

(Please keep in mind that I'm not bashing you or anything; this is
just a discussion between friends (I hope!), right? I just think your
bashing of the man and his work is a little off base; its as if you're
taking personal offense in some way rather than just saying, "look,
his work just isn't for me.")