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

41–50 of 143 posts

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

#41

Post by lqet »

throw310822 wrote: post #39
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…

> Lord Bullingdon (the neurotic brother of Lady Lyndon) It's her son from the first marriage.

You are right of course!

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

#43

Post by mateus1 »

amanzi wrote: post #38

I love Kubrick movies, but my one bit of criticism I'd give (from me - a random guy on the internet, who's never made a movie), is that both 2001 and The Shining both require the viewer to have read the respective books to fully appreciate them. I know it's a cliché to harp on about the ending of 2001, but it really does make a lot more sense after having read the book, which in turn makes the movie a lot more enjoya…

I do not think you have to fully rationally grasp the ending for 2001 to be an impactful film.

I’d argue it is a masterpiece _because_ of that uneasiness and befuddlement and that is one of the ways it leaves a mark on you.

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

#44

Post by ghusto »

amanzi wrote: post #38

I love Kubrick movies, but my one bit of criticism I'd give (from me - a random guy on the internet, who's never made a movie), is that both 2001 and The Shining both require the viewer to have read the respective books to fully appreciate them. I know it's a cliché to harp on about the ending of 2001, but it really does make a lot more sense after having read the book, which in turn makes the movie a lot more enjoya…

Agreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence.

Triggers cinemaphiles to hear a director that’s supposed to be ome of the finest being called incompetent, but I can’t see how it’s defendable. He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.

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

#45

Post by blaerk »

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…

Leons daughter Vera talked a bit about her father, his relationship to Kubrick, art and family in “Sommar i P1”, a Swedish national radio show where people in “public interest” talk about whatever for an hour or so. It’s pretty interesting and provide some insights, but unfortunately it’s only in Swedish

https://sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/1319508#

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

#46

Post by bondarchuk »

ghusto wrote: post #44
amanzi wrote: post #38

I love Kubrick movies, but my one bit of criticism I'd give (from me - a random guy on the internet, who's never made a movie), is that both 2001 and The Shining both require the viewer to have read the respective books to fully appreciate them. I know it's a cliché to harp on about the ending of 2001, but it really does make a lot more sense after having read the book, which in turn makes the movie a lot more enjoya…

Agreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence. Triggers cinemaphiles to hear a director that’s supposed to be ome of the finest being called incompetent, but I can’t see how it’s defendable. He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.

Cinemaphiles TRIGGERED by this simple critique! (come on man...)

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

#48

Post by tambourine_man »

amanzi wrote: post #38

I love Kubrick movies, but my one bit of criticism I'd give (from me - a random guy on the internet, who's never made a movie), is that both 2001 and The Shining both require the viewer to have read the respective books to fully appreciate them. I know it's a cliché to harp on about the ending of 2001, but it really does make a lot more sense after having read the book, which in turn makes the movie a lot more enjoya…

“Leaving things out” is sometimes one of cinema's greatest strengths.

I’ll never forget a documentary I saw on martial arts film editors. They will deliberately cut the very frame where a fist would touch an actor's face. And not at all because it was badly choreographed. Instead, they realized that the strongest punch is the one you never see. It’s the one you complete with your imagination. And there’s no competing with that.

Likewise, leaving some of the plot to be inferred by the audience is a powerful narrative mechanism.

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

#50

Post by lelanthran »

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.

> 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.

Very. Who knows how many hours of sweat he poured into it, only to get it shelved when it was done.

This, IMHO, is a good reason to recommend everyone read The Mom Test at some point in their adult life.

What probably happened was that the author got the initial agreement from Kubric by being so persistent that Kubric agreed just to make them go away. A lukewarm reception from someone is just their polite way of saying "no".

Post reply on HN