The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

STANLEY KUBRICK : Genius or Hack?


#1

I wanted to start a post to discuss Stanley Kubrick, who I consider to be a genius of cinema. No he hasnt made films to please the everyone, but he still should be respected as an innovator and visionary of cinema. (most people who have a knowledge of films made before 1994 will agree).



Now, Sebastian, our dear Tarantino Forum Master has drawn a line in the sand. He claims that Kubricks films are basically SHIT. Personally I think Sebs been watching Last Man Standing (his favorite film) too much. Its affecting his brain. :wink:



Since I DO respect other peoples opinions if they have a knowledge of film and film history, I will totally let certain subjects go, BUT this is one case where I cant do that.



So far Seb has said his films are: Plot weak, weird, boring, music scores dont make sense, the films blow because theyre not in Widescreen, and they SUCK ASS.



My opinion is that Kubricks films are : Innovative, comedic, exciting, bizarre, mysterious, breathtaking, surreal, horrific and most of all: fun to watch.



Id like to hear what everyone thinks of Kubrick, do you think hes a great filmmaker or a hackity hack? Be honest and make some valid points please. :slight_smile:



The films: KILLERS KISS, THE KILLING, SPARTACUS, LOLITA, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, DR STRANGELOVE, EYES WIDE SHUT, FULL METAL JACKET, THE SHINING, 2001, BARRY LYNDON, PATHS OF GLORY.


#2

Nobody in their right mind could call Kubrick a “hack”. Sure, you don’t have to like all his movies - I myself don’t, either, but that doesn’t mean I could possibly deny the man’s genius. Personally, I didn’t care much for “2001: A Space Odyssey”, but it’s obviously a virtuoso piece of cinema, regardless of whether you think the idea behind it is pretentious new age tripe or not. I also didn’t like “Full Metal Jacket” and “Eyes Wide Shut”, but both films do have brilliant scenes that should erase any doubt as to what Kubrick is capable of.



And let’s not forget: he’s also the director of the devilishly funny Cold War satire “Dr. Strangelove”, the brilliant cult classic “A Clockwork Orange” (how anyone could find it boring is beyond me), and what is in my opinion definitely the scariest horror movie of all time: the marvellous, fantastic, incredible “The Shining”. 99 % of all directors can’t even write one film as good as these on their resume, let alone three.



Kubrick = Genius.


#3

well, since I was the one who ignitiated this discussion, I ought to say a few words to back up my personal opinion on Mr Kubrick.



first of, one should view this discussion from a neutral point of view. even if you absolutely love a movie it can still be a bad film after all…



the reason why I had an argument with VickVega a day ago was, that I stated my dislike towards Kubrick’s style of filmmaking.



I purchased Full Metal Jacket recently to fill my collection of Vietnam movies on DVD. now, I love Vietnam movies, it’s one of my favorite genres. And FMJ is certainly one of the best of that genre. What disturbs me with it, is the 4:3 picture I get on that DVD. And that’s not Warner Bros.'s fault, its what Stanley wanted.



Then, I got A Clockwork Orange on DVD, from a friend. And the first time i tried watching it, I fell asleep.

The second time I had to force myself through it. Now I don’t think it’s a bad movie. But to call it cult or classic or genius or whatever is too much. What does the movie give us? A weird story. Try to watch it without the score and the movie loses 60% of its impact. So is Kubrick the genius or the guy who composed the score (“Ludvig van”)? This movie is not as exciting as everyone sais. Its an average bizarre movie, with no really good plot, only one good acting character… I just didn’t like it.

I won’t watch it again. I’ve seen it now, and that’s it for me.



2001 A Space Odyssee:

Well, watched that DVD some months ago, too. Has something in common with Clockwork Orange: The score. 2001 is 90% good score with 5% good images and 5% weirdness and 0% plot. Where is the plot in 2001? Where is the acting? Where is the sense? It’s a weird chain of scenes, great music (not by kubrick). And there is no story.

How can people adore a movie that shows us 20 minutes of grunting apes and then cuts to a space ship? Is that the great screenwriting? Hey Stanley, good job, telling the story from apes to space ships, you’re a genius!!! Hey… it’s overrated.

Kubrick is overrated.



Kubrick isn’t a bad director. Kubrick is just overrated. I have no idea why.



And another thing I hate about that guy: He recorded in MONO. That sucks. Stereo was long time around when he made movies.

He favored 4:3. What the fuck?


#4

I don’t care much for the majority of his films (though keep in mind I haven’t yet seen Dr. Strangelove), but I have respect for the man for what he had done with A Clockwork Orange and The Shining. ACO is a great novel, but to understand half of the story, you have to get a translation of all the nadsat words. Anthony Burgess, author of ACO, declined to include the translations in the novel, wanting his audience to figure out the words through context. Everyone I know would’ve thrown the book down before they’d read a page. Kubrick really cracked down on the amount of nadsat used, and made everything easier to understand. Also, the novel had this alternate ending in which Alex grows tired of his former life of ultra-violence and after talking to one of his old droogs Pete, who had also moved on and was planning to start a family with his new wife, wants to better his future. The thought of mischevious little Alex reforming his ways and growing up sounded extremely contrived, one of those “every story has to have a happy ending that beautifies society” things.

As for The Shining, I had the recent opportunity to read the book and I was rather disappointed. Stephen King, though a great writer, is also overrated. Maybe it’s because I didn’t read too much into the supposedly symbolic elements, like the wasp nest on the roof, the hedge animals, and the boilers (the book ends with Wendy, Danny, and Halloran, who lives, hi-tailing it out of the Overlook before it blows to opulent smithereens and sails flaming into the night). I much prefer Kubrick’s ending by showing Jack in the picture from 1921, much more forboding and mysterious.



Did anyone else think that Spartacus and Lolita didn’t look that…I don’t know…Kubrickian? As in, it lacked his usual style that sets him apart? Could just be the subject matter, nearly all epic movies about Greece or Rome from decades ago looks exactly the same.



-Jez


#5

on the forum of http://cinema.tarantino.info



there’s a post about Kubrick where I state explicitly WHY i hate Kubrick, i dont wanna copy that into here, i want people to go there, haha


#6

When you said ‘explicitly’, somehow I expected something more vulgar. :wink:



-Jez


#7

you want something vulgar? that man has passed away! you don’t talk vulgar about dead people, at least not about most…



well actually I can’t stand his moviemaking… that’s all. And I think 2001 is a MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF APE-SHIT


#8

[quote]you want something vulgar? that man has passed away! you don’t talk vulgar about dead people, at least not about most…



well actually I can’t stand his moviemaking… that’s all. And I think 2001 is a MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF APE-SHIT[/quote]

2001 is a PIECE OF APE SHIT!!! BUT RULES OF ATTRACTION RULES!!! lol.



Seb man, your funny.


#9

never said ROA is great or anything, just stated i that i WILL watch it because ME THINKS its a good film.



for ROA vs. 2001:

ROA has a plot/story, 2001 has not

ROA has Jessica Biel half-naked, 2001 has not

LOL


#10

[quote]never said ROA is great or anything, just stated i that i WILL watch it because ME THINKS its a good film.



for ROA vs. 2001:

ROA has a plot/story, 2001 has not

ROA has Jessica Biel half-naked, 2001 has not

LOL[/quote]

Yeah but comparing 2001 to ROA is like comparing The Godfather to Scooby Doo. I mean its not even in the same league, its not even the same fuckin sport! ÊAvary is heading towards HACKtown at 150 miles an hour, I think even HE knows he’s not gonna be making movies long. Did you notice that he used Pulp Fiction to get people to go see ROA? Avarys still riding on QTs coattails. That type of shit pisses me off. Avary sucks ass!!!


#11

GENIUS:

BARRY LYNDON

CLOCKWORK ORANGE

2001:


#12

[quote]


Did you notice that he used Pulp Fiction to get people to go see ROA? Avarys still riding on QTs coattails. That type of shit pisses me off. Avary sucks ass!!!
[/quote]

Yeah, didn’t the tagline go something like "From the sick minds that brought you American Psycho and Pulp Fiction? Lol, Quentin should sue!!


#13

i love kubrick


#14

Kubrick is easily one of the 5 greatest directors ever.


#15

[quote]Kubrick is easily one of the 5 greatest directors ever.[/quote]


well my top 5 are: tarantino
craven
speilberg
kubrick
john landis

#16

I personally think that Kubrick is perhaps the best director of all time. He was an artist of the screen, he was most certenly a Genius. He looked at things in a way that no other film director has ever done.



I don’t really give a shit what aspect ratio the film is made in. As long as that’s what the director intended and nothing is being cut off then i’m ok with it. He was pissed becasue films are his art cuting off the sides would be like cutting off the sides of you’r painting because nobody liked widescreen VHS’s. I never knew why he hated dolby so much but perhaps it was because stereo was was moving away from the art and twords the big movie buisness. I think that for his movies he didn’t need stereo because they took away from the way he wanted you to see his movie. I don’t know, just a guess.



It’s hard to say. He was one fucked up motherfucker


#17

There is no doubt that Kubrick was a little out there . but that is what made him so special, and what I love about him most is that he would not compromise his vision to suit anybody. It was like every film was his baby, and he brought his baby up the way he was going to, and the way he thought was right. He didn’t care about studio execs, and but loads of money, he cared about vision and the art, and that is why he will be remembered for a long time.


#18

Quite a good director. I dont like all of his stuff, but some of it i do. Like 2001. I hate that movie. Yet i can look past my own feelings towards the movie and simply look at the direction and know its good. He is certainly top 5, and probably a strong contendor for the number 2 slot. Of course Kurosawa is number 1, but i think that goes without question.


#19

Hitchcock could take down Kurosawa every day of the week.



For me it goes: Hitchcock, Tarantino, Kubrick, and then Kurosawa.



And I love all of Kubrick’s movies.


#20

All of the four mentioned movies are great.