Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

51–60 of 143 posts

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

#51
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…

Also very enjoyable, Emilio D'Alessandro’s book Stanley Kubrick and Me

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

#53

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

Well, she is a “nymphette” in the book. That novel is so well written and not even in the author’s native language.

Actually in the book she is really not. She is a 12 year old child being sexualised in the mind of the narrator. She doesn't act seductively, the narrator sees whatever she does in a perverted way.

There is a famous interview on French TV where Nabokov says as much (in French) [0]

[0] https://www.ina.fr/actualites-ina/mon-archive-preferee/mon-a...

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

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you believe that what OP wrote is normal boss behaviour? I wouldn't want to work for you.

Normal bosses don’t get Kubrick like results.

Kubrick’s results were all over the map. He made maybe three great films:

Dr. Strangelove

Full Metal Jacket

A Clockwork Orange

A bunch of not bad films:

2001

Lolita

Barry Lyndon

The Shining

Spartacus

One real turd of a film:

Eyes Wide Shut

And a bunch of forgettable filler:

All the other films he made.

Compare this to the Anti-Kubrick, Clint Eastwood, who made:

Unforgiven

Mystic River

Million Dollar Baby

Letters From Iwo Jima

Gran Torino

And a bunch of okay films:

Pretty much everything else

And it’s pretty obvious that you don’t need to be an abusive taskmaster like Kubrick to make great art.

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

#56
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…

It would have been tough since the book and movie for 2001 were created concurrently.

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

#57
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he was happy doing it but it doesn't mean that he was treated well. That era of director dictators caused a lot of suffering.

[flagged]

What a weird comparison.

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

#58
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he was happy doing it but it doesn't mean that he was treated well. That era of director dictators caused a lot of suffering.

[flagged]

"doesn’t make him bad"

Doesn't it though?

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

#59
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he was happy doing it but it doesn't mean that he was treated well. That era of director dictators caused a lot of suffering.

[flagged]

Did Jesus himself do that directly?

I mean directors like Kubrick, Hitchcock and John Landis that acted like dictators. See twilight zone accident.

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

#60
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 article it sounded like the clause to 'veto' was really meant as a fact check. Kubrick would be able to get chance to leave sections out, or clarify. That he just rejected the whole thing was the surprise.

Like if someone hired you to do a Web Site, and there was of course some stipulation that you get to review it. Then you complain the buttons are the wrong color and just reject the whole thing.

Post reply on HN