Page 3 of 4

PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:15 pm
by bluebottle
what i love about kubrick's lolita is that it is SO subtle. It's all there, but you have to really look hard.

i'm sure there are people who watch it and miss it completely.

James Mason gives the performance of a lifetime... He's just so fuckin' creepy, and his relationship with Shelly Winters. God it's tragic and beautiful and disturbing.

Great flick. People who argue that it's too tame just aren't watching it closely, imho.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:00 pm
by Brocktune
Shane wrote:I liked the re-make of Lolita more than Kubricks original.


damn shame.
dominique swain is hot, and jeremy irons a master craftsman. but lyne's lolita is cold and distant, and irons is just a creepy pedophile. where as kubrick's is warm and charming, yet intense and honest and works on more levels than lyne's. also, i feel kubricks is more true to the spirit of the book. while how far kubrick could go in his depiction of sex between lo and prof. humbert was limited by the standards of the day, that was irrelevant, as we all know what the fuck is going on. i dont know that if SK shot this bitch today that he would have done it any differently. kubricks lolita is a masterpiece. lyne's was merely controversial.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:57 pm
by esbern
The opening scene in Clockwork Orange is the best thing kubrick has ever done. The music, the mood, the lighting, the poses. Oh and the narration. Oh thats narration is amazing.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:02 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
esbern wrote:The opening scene in Clockwork Orange is the best thing kubrick has ever done. The music, the mood, the lighting, the poses. Oh and the narration. Oh thats narration is amazing.


nice little reference to the ending of 2001 to boot. We go from the eyes of the Starchild to the eyes of Alex...is he the Starchild?

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:30 pm
by Brocktune
esbern wrote:The opening scene in Clockwork Orange is the best thing kubrick has ever done. The music, the mood, the lighting, the poses. Oh and the narration. Oh thats narration is amazing.


thats an awfully bold statement. sort of undermines the gravity of the rest of his work. not that that scene isnt well done, but the finality of saying this scene is the greatest thing he ever did. well, i could never narrow it down that easily.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:33 pm
by esbern
eh? i'm not undermining the rest of his work in any way. there is nothing wrong with having a favorite part of a book, song, catalogue, etc. while still being able to appreciate all aspects of something.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:29 am
by Octaveaeon
What you should all be reading is the "Golden Bough"..

Or "The Destruction of the European Jews"...

Amongst some.

I mean.

If you listen to "Herr".

Herr Friend.

Do you all really want to understand Kubrick?

Well then how about starting by undressing yourselves.

Kubrick wasn't all that. His intelligence was limited.

But his art transcended all our wildest expectations.

Do you understand what 'art' is about?

Fuck you.

My dog just choked on itself.

I'm lucky I didn't.

Welcome to the next.

EWS is about prostitution.

HaHA HI HI

Notice how Tom wants to sove everything with money. Notice how Nicole just wants to look pretty. Notice their daughter. Especially in the final scene in the warehouse, during a "Christmas" sale. Pimping the bitch.

Look beyond what "Christmas" represents, particularly in mystical traditions.. beyond the Eleusinian mysteries.

Trust me. If you think you've got Kubrick figured out, then you are an idiot.

Don't be ashamed.

That's life.

K.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:31 am
by burlivesleftnut
Image

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:32 am
by thomasgaffney
burlivesleftnut wrote:Image


IPAMPILASH!

I'm hypnotized by your sign......

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:33 am
by TonyWilson
Pretentious douche overload. Sorry but you seem to think you know far more than any of us. Here's a tip; don't patronise people, it annoys them.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:45 am
by ThisIsTheGirl
Burl that sign is brilliant - where do you get those wonderful toys.

Octaveaeon - you seem to feel you have Kubrick figured out better than the rest of us - does this make you an idiot?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:23 am
by doglips
Octaveaeon wrote:What you should all be reading is the "Golden Bough"..
Or "The Destruction of the European Jews"...
Amongst some.
I mean.
If you listen to "Herr".
Herr Friend.
Do you all really want to understand Kubrick?
Well then how about starting by undressing yourselves.
Kubrick wasn't all that. His intelligence was limited.
But his art transcended all our wildest expectations.
Do you understand what 'art' is about?
Fuck you.
My dog just choked on itself.
I'm lucky I didn't.
Welcome to the next.
EWS is about prostitution.
HaHA HI HI
Notice how Tom wants to sove everything with money. Notice how Nicole just wants to look pretty. Notice their daughter. Especially in the final scene in the warehouse, during a "Christmas" sale. Pimping the bitch.
Look beyond what "Christmas" represents, particularly in mystical traditions.. beyond the Eleusinian mysteries.
Trust me. If you think you've got Kubrick figured out, then you are an idiot.
Don't be ashamed.
That's life.
K.



Hey, check out where Octaveaeon lives on the memberlist :wink:

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:28 am
by Octaveaeon
To answer your question Girl: A complete and utter idiot.

Kubrick never invited me over for dinner after all.

I'd be the first one to admit that.


To All: Sorry if you felt spoken to. Really.


Good magic never reveals its secrets. And an honest person never pretends to know them. It's that tension that drives us, in a pseudo-Hegelian sort of way I’d say (pardon my French, and bs). If I gave the wrong impression, then forgive me. I'll blame the booze, if you don't mind (softer on the ego). Laying off the sauce for sure now, if it means insulting anonymous AICNers anonymously from my anonymous hide-out in New York's nom d'origine.

EWS is more than just about prostitution. Or secret-societies and wannabe mystery-cults.

But one thing is for sure. Kubrick was about more than just a 'director', and his work was more than just 'movies' or 'art', but no one here would disagree with that, so nevermind. I'll continue to ponder on this by myself now...

Btw, ever hear of the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili?

You already know Traumnovelle.

1499-1999: That's 500 years between dreams. Freud-Jung (I think K. leaned more towards Jung, and the power of myth, hence him trying to get people to read The Golden Bough). Psychology-Architecture. Cupid and Psyche (statue in Ziegler's house when Harfords are greeted) and Venus. Golden Ass. Hmmm...

No, I don't know what I'm talking about, just repeating myself. Passing through folks... nothing to see... everything is under control. Thank God for the 21st century. 2 + 2= 5.

Destruction of the Jews part II. Classic. EWS should have been a comedy after all...

Or he should have lived long enough to direct the Dune Chronicles. After all, Herbert was apparently also a big fan of the Golden Bough. After seeing Jackson's LOTR make it to the screen and the demise of the Star Wars saga, I'm sure he could have been arm twisted in that direction...

Not.

Ah, God bless his good-natured soul.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:51 am
by Octaveaeon
On another note, saw King Kong today. Man, I haven't been reduced to such an emotional state in ages... Heart of Darkness indeed... (did I sense a slight critique on Jackson's part on the role of movies, directors, and audiences for vulgarising beauty for the sake of wanton entertainment? In the end, who is the beast that Denham is referring to? I get the feeling that the reason this Denham turns out to be such an asshole (compared to the original) is because he’s meant to represent the savage, egotistical, and ignorant, drive lying beneath the 'smiles' the so-called ‘powerful’ hide behind. Still, with the fall of the ape, love (and humanity) is exulted, while below the 'heart of darkness' remains... as do beauty (Truth) and the beast (Void)).

Then again this could just be a movie about an ape going ape-shit instead of a retelling of the Titanic… (heart of darkness/heart of the ocean, kong/jack (including similar death scenes), rose/ann, Denham/Hockley, the role of hubris, ships hitting rocks, etc. etc…)

Euhh…. Just kidding. I think.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:53 am
by Adam Balm
I think I'm losing the will to live.



























































just kidding.....I know I'm losing the will to live.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:42 am
by Octaveaeon
Don't give up hope yet Adam.

Remember: The heart will go oooooooooooon... and ooooooon...

Nothing like a little Celine to put you back on track. If that doesn't work try Enya. Just ask Jackson...

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:44 am
by WilliamMcGuire
2001 is really the only correct choice, but a close second goes to the THE KILLING; a film of such furious momentum that I don't think Kubrick ever regained the energy again.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:38 pm
by TheButcher
Robert Duvall Labels Performances in Kubrick’s Films as “Terrible”
Ben Garman wrote:Legendary actor Robert Duvall has condemned “the great Stanley Kubrick” as an “actors enemy”. The fiery exclamation came during a round table interview with THR after it was revealed that director David Fincher frequently took around fifty takes to get the perfect shot whilst filming The Social Network. Fellow interviewees Mark Ruffalo and Jesse Eisenberg laugh (perhaps with disdain?) as Duvall compares Fincher to Kubrick. No doubt a comparison like that would normally be considered flattering, but Duvall continued, dismissing the performances in such classics as The Shining and A Clockwork Orange as “the worst performances I’ve ever seen in movies”.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 4:03 pm
by Fried Gold
TheButcher wrote:Robert Duvall Labels Performances in Kubrick’s Films as “Terrible”
Ben Garman wrote:Legendary actor Robert Duvall has condemned “the great Stanley Kubrick” as an “actors enemy”. The fiery exclamation came during a round table interview with THR after it was revealed that director David Fincher frequently took around fifty takes to get the perfect shot whilst filming The Social Network. Fellow interviewees Mark Ruffalo and Jesse Eisenberg laugh (perhaps with disdain?) as Duvall compares Fincher to Kubrick. No doubt a comparison like that would normally be considered flattering, but Duvall continued, dismissing the performances in such classics as The Shining and A Clockwork Orange as “the worst performances I’ve ever seen in movies”.

Kubrick (and some others like Ridley Scott) once said that he often shot that many takes because it meant the actors got bored, stopped performing so "leading man" and gave a better acting performance.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:15 am
by minstrel
I've seen both The Shining and A Clockwork Orange, and those performances are good. Duvall seems to have some private grudge against Kubrick or his methods. For Duvall to state that these are the worst performances he's ever seen says more about Duvall than about Kubrick. I think Duvall is a good actor, but I don't like where his brain has wound up.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:03 am
by TheBaxter
minstrel wrote:I've seen both The Shining and A Clockwork Orange, and those performances are good. Duvall seems to have some private grudge against Kubrick or his methods. For Duvall to state that these are the worst performances he's ever seen says more about Duvall than about Kubrick. I think Duvall is a good actor, but I don't like where his brain has wound up.


senility?

my take on it really is that duvall comes from a school of acting that is very naturalistic. whereas the performances, in those films in particular, are much more mannered and theatrical. duvall probably doesn't like the performances because they're radically different from his own acting style, but i think he's wrong to say that they're terrible. they're just very different from what he does.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:33 pm
by TonyWilson
Yeah I pretty much agree with Baxter here. The thing about Kubrick films (and to a much lesser extent, Nolan for example) is that the emphasis of the art isn't on the standard psychologically realistic characters but more on the form of cinema, plot, metaphor etc etc and so he often gets criticised unduly.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:24 pm
by The Vicar
I generally like Duvall, ( loved his Open Range character) but he should STFU. He's sounding like a bitter old crank.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 8:50 pm
by Major Briggs
I love all of Kubrick's films, but Lolita and Barry Lyndon tie as my favorites, followed closely by 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining. Speaking of The Shining, I found an interesting article discussing the influence of David Lynch's Eraserhead on The Shining. It's interesting that Lynch and Kubrick helped inspire one another's work.

http://entertainmentguidefilmtv.blogspot.com/2010/11/35-years-of-david-lynch.html

But picking between Kubrick movies is a little like asking which child is your favorite :)

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:21 pm
by TheButcher

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:10 pm
by so sorry



In related news, I will soon be able to sleep 17 minutes longer.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:49 pm
by The Vicar
so sorry wrote:



In related news, I will soon be able to sleep 17 minutes longer.


Image

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:28 pm
by minstrel
I want to see the footage, but I don't want to see it cut into the movie. Just put out a new Blu-Ray edition that has the new footage as a bonus feature.

And I'll stay awake. I generally do for Kubrick.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:36 am
by magicmonkey
minstrel wrote:I want to see the footage, but I don't want to see it cut into the movie. Just put out a new Blu-Ray edition that has the new footage as a bonus feature.

And I'll stay awake. I generally do for Kubrick.


If only her was still around to do a director's cut. Just think of ALL the CGI he could squeeze in. Oh man, he could invite Lucas round as his personal mentor to really help put a jazzy new spin on his flicks. :lol: :x

If this footage was cut in through seamless branching I could abide, but ultimately I'd rather see more material from The Shining or Eyes Wide Shut, and indeed Full Metal Jacket, which are all movies that IMO could benefit from bumper cuts.

It all depends on what audience you are aiming your flick at, perhaps in teh future, films will be shot, the rushes distributed and YOU MAKE YOUR OWN EDIT. Too badass.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:54 am
by Tyrone_Shoelaces
If it ever sees the light of day I'll be very surprised if it is cut it into the flick. I can't imagine the estate ever allowing any kind of edit to any of his films.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:09 am
by Spandau Belly
How about they edit this stuff into a director's cut of A.I.?

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:48 am
by Fried Gold

I wonder how it in a salt-mine (or how someone forgot it was there).

It will never be recut into the film. His estate may not even allow it to be released on it's own.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:19 am
by TheBaxter
Spandau Belly wrote:How about they edit this stuff into a director's cut of A.I.?


i'd rather they edit some A.I. footage into 2001. how about a bunch of robot-aliens from the future rescue the Starchild from the bottom of the ocean and give him a make-believe mommy to live with forever and ever, happily ever after, the end.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:20 am
by TheBaxter
Fried Gold wrote:

I wonder how it in a salt-mine (or how someone forgot it was there).

It will never be recut into the film. His estate may not even allow it to be released on it's own.


Two, Kubrick himself reportedly cut the footage from the film because he felt it created pacing issues.


for all the 2001 haters out there, that has to be one of the funniest/most ironic sentences evar.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:51 am
by Peven
TheBaxter wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:

I wonder how it in a salt-mine (or how someone forgot it was there).

It will never be recut into the film. His estate may not even allow it to be released on it's own.


Two, Kubrick himself reportedly cut the footage from the film because he felt it created pacing issues.


for all the 2001 haters out there, that has to be one of the funniest/most ironic sentences evar.



I am not a "2001" hater, but I still think that is one of the funniest quotes I have seen from a director about a movie they made.....

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:01 am
by TheButcher
From /film:
Warner Bros Responds: 17 Minutes of “Lost” ’2001: A Space Odyssey’ Footage Found?
“The additional footage from 2001: A Space Odyssey has always existed in the Warner vaults. When [director Stanley] Kubrick trimmed the 17 minutes from 2001 after the NY premiere, he made it clear the shortened version was his final edit. The film is as he wanted it to be presented and preserved and Warner Home Video has no plans to expand or revise Mr. Kubrick’s vision.”

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 11:14 pm
by TheButcher

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 12:50 pm
by SilentScream
I'm sorry, but how can it be possible that Eyes Wide Shut has more votes than Paths Of Glory?

The only claim to fame the former had was that it may've hastened poor Stanley's demise, so hard he worked on the bloody thing. And for what? It was probably his worst flick. Ludicrous.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 1:09 pm
by TheBaxter
SilentScream wrote:I'm sorry, but how can it be possible that Eyes Wide Shut has more votes than Paths Of Glory?

The only claim to fame the former had was that it may've hastened poor Stanley's demise, so hard he worked on the bloody thing. And for what? It was probably his worst flick. Ludicrous.


but it had nicole kidman's ass. her glorious, glorious ass.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 2:36 pm
by SilentScream
TheBaxter wrote:
SilentScream wrote:I'm sorry, but how can it be possible that Eyes Wide Shut has more votes than Paths Of Glory?

The only claim to fame the former had was that it may've hastened poor Stanley's demise, so hard he worked on the bloody thing. And for what? It was probably his worst flick. Ludicrous.


but it had nicole kidman's ass. her glorious, glorious ass.


Yes, peachy white like soft marble. Even I found that arousing.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 2:37 pm
by minstrel
Should Nicole Kidman's ass have its own thread?

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 3:46 pm
by so sorry
minstrel wrote:Should Nicole Kidman's ass have its own thread?



http://zone.aintitcool.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2321&hilit=best+nude

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 3:57 pm
by TheBaxter
minstrel wrote:Should Nicole Kidman's ass have its own thread?


of course, how else do you expect to get the hamster back out?

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 4:01 pm
by minstrel
TheBaxter wrote:
minstrel wrote:Should Nicole Kidman's ass have its own thread?


of course, how else do you expect to get the hamster back out?


Hey! For us rodents, that's not an acceptable image!

:wink:

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 4:08 pm
by TheBaxter
minstrel wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:
minstrel wrote:Should Nicole Kidman's ass have its own thread?


of course, how else do you expect to get the hamster back out?


Hey! For us rodents, that's not an acceptable image!

:wink:


there are worse images. like this!


Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2011 8:22 am
by SilentScream
minstrel wrote:Should Nicole Kidman's ass have its own thread?


Didn't do much for Tom Cruise though did it? Maybe not hairy enough.

Re: Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 2:22 am
by TheButcher

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:37 am
by TheButcher
From Blastr:
Little-known sci-fi fact: Why HAL 9000 sang 'Daisy' in 2001
Don Kaye wrote:In honor of what would have been director Stanley Kubrick's 83rd birthday on this date, we reveal what might have been the real reason HAL 9000 sang "Daisy Bell" in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Remember how in Kubrick's 1968 visionary science fiction masterpiece, astronaut Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) is forced to shut the supercomputer HAL 9000 down after it malfunctions and kills the rest of the crew on their Jupiter-bound spacecraft? Well, as Bowman unplugs HAL's connections one by one, the machine sort of has a flashback to its very first day of operation, when it demonstrated its abilities by singing a song.

The song? "Daisy Bell," written in 1892 by Harry Dacre. But where did Kubrick get the idea to use that particular tune?

It turns out that in 1961, the IBM 7094, among the earliest and largest mainframe machines developed by the computing giant, became the first computer to sing, and the tune it warbled was—you guessed it—"Daisy Bell." The vocals were programmed by John Kelly and Carol Lockbaum, while the musical accompaniment was programmed by Max Mathews. It seems certain that Kubrick used this as the inspiration for HAL's signoff in his movie.

A recording of the IBM 7094's rendition is below. We think HAL's got a smoother voice, but the 7094's performance was more historic by far.

(via Roger Ebert's Journal)

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:14 am
by Fried Gold
That's not a little known fact.

Re: Kubrickian Classics

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 11:38 am
by TonyWilson
Not amongst Kubrick nerds no, amongst the general populace? Definitely.