Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 143 posts

Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published

#21

Post by fastball »

textfiles wrote: post #16
fastball wrote: post #5

Doesn't seem that controversial. A publisher commissioned a book about the films of Stanley Kubrick, agreeing that Kubrick would be able to veto publishing of the text if he didn't like it. He didn't like it, didn't sign off on it, and the book was never published.

From the article, it appears the big sadness for the author was he wrote back and said he was happy to work with Kubrick to discuss getting it to where he was more comfortable with it, Kubrick never responded, and then sent lawyers. That's all that's rough for the writer, here.

That's not very surprising either though.

I don't know many artists who would enjoy the prospect of justifying their art to someone who was skeptical of its merit from the start.

Not saying Kubrick did the right thing, just that it seems very on-brand for most people in his position.

Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published

#22

Post by lqet »

I highly recommend the documentary Filmworker to anyone interested in Stanley Kubrick's character.

It's about Leon Vitali, the actor who played Lord Bullingdon (the neurotic brother of Lady Lyndon) in Barry Lyndon. After filming Barry Lyndon, he quit acting and became Kubricks personal assistant / factotum for over 20 years. Although some would say he was Kubrick's personal slave. It is utterly shocking to see how badly Kubrick treated him at times. Vitali did the work of 4-5 assistants, completely neglected his family, destroyed his health, spend the best years of his life re-cutting scenes until 5 in the morning while listening to Kubrick's violent tantrums, and ended his successful acting career for him. But apparently he was paid so little by Kubrick that he ran into financial trouble after the director's death. Yet for some mysterious reason, he remained completely loyal to his master until his own death in 2022.

Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published

#23

Post by smitty1e »

fastball wrote: post #5

Doesn't seem that controversial. A publisher commissioned a book about the films of Stanley Kubrick, agreeing that Kubrick would be able to veto publishing of the text if he didn't like it. He didn't like it, didn't sign off on it, and the book was never published.

The question raised is whether one can be as great an artist as Kubrick without succumbing to taking oneself too seriously.

Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published

#24

Post by voltaireodactyl »

lqet wrote: post #22

I highly recommend the documentary Filmworker to anyone interested in Stanley Kubrick's character. It's about Leon Vitali, the actor who played Lord Bullingdon (the neurotic brother of Lady Lyndon) in Barry Lyndon . After filming Barry Lyndon, he quit acting and became Kubricks personal assistant / factotum for over 20 years. Although some would say he was Kubrick's personal slave. It is utterly shocking to see how b…

There are many people who believe that something outside themselves is more important than their own personal happiness or even basic sustenance/stability. Whether that’s something to be admired, damned, or merely observed — it would seem Vitali made choices for reasons worth it to him, personally.

Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published

#25

Post by ycombinete »

lqet wrote: post #22

I highly recommend the documentary Filmworker to anyone interested in Stanley Kubrick's character. It's about Leon Vitali, the actor who played Lord Bullingdon (the neurotic brother of Lady Lyndon) in Barry Lyndon . After filming Barry Lyndon, he quit acting and became Kubricks personal assistant / factotum for over 20 years. Although some would say he was Kubrick's personal slave. It is utterly shocking to see how b…

Sounds like a two person cult.

Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published

#26

Post by toast0 »

prmoustache wrote: post #15
ashurov wrote: post #4

So, why can they publish it now? His death doesn’t nullify the agreement, does it?

I don't think a contract still stands when one of the party do not exists anymore. And dead people don't have rights past what they have decided on inheritance and even this can be sometimes overturned by justice. This is the reason wealthy people sometimes give their wealth to a foundation but if the foundation doesn't find a way to make it sustainable and money runs out it also ends up dissolved regardless of the c…

Generally, a party has successors that would benefit from the contract.

But without seeing the contract, we don't really know. Perhaps it only bound the original publisher, and not the author, but some other contract had bound the author to only publish through that publisher, and that publication contract is no longer in force. Who knows, the article doesn't tell us.

Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published

#27

Post by trwm »

ghaff wrote: post #17
fermigier wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kubrick’s film simplified the psychological depth and literary nuances of Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 novel, adapting its themes and character dynamics to fit both the cinematic form and the censorship norms of its time. Constrained by the Hays Code and societal taboos of the 1960s, it toned down the explicitness of the sexual elements of the story. The was more overt humor and satire in the film, partly as a way to addr…

The criticism seems pretty fair. Not sure how filmable the book is especially given the constraints of the time.

The constraints of today would be much worse. I'd go so far as saying that making even Kubricks version today would be impossible.

Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published

#28

Post by ZiiS »

textfiles wrote: post #16
fastball wrote: post #5

Doesn't seem that controversial. A publisher commissioned a book about the films of Stanley Kubrick, agreeing that Kubrick would be able to veto publishing of the text if he didn't like it. He didn't like it, didn't sign off on it, and the book was never published.

From the article, it appears the big sadness for the author was he wrote back and said he was happy to work with Kubrick to discuss getting it to where he was more comfortable with it, Kubrick never responded, and then sent lawyers. That's all that's rough for the writer, here.

The problem is, if you have a veto and don't use it; you are basically endorsing the book.

Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published

#29

Post by Detrytus »

fermigier wrote: post #14
napierzaza wrote: post #2

So the guy writing the book wanted Lolita to be a lot hornier?

Kubrick’s film simplified the psychological depth and literary nuances of Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 novel, adapting its themes and character dynamics to fit both the cinematic form and the censorship norms of its time. Constrained by the Hays Code and societal taboos of the 1960s, it toned down the explicitness of the sexual elements of the story. The was more overt humor and satire in the film, partly as a way to addr…

How does that compare to 1997 "Lolita" with Jeremy Irons?
Post reply on HN