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

81–90 of 143 posts

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

#81

Post by gspencley »

Hikikomori wrote: post #40
jfkrirj wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

I don't think there's a lot of people that wanted to work for Kubrick. But I also have an easy time accepting that there are many people out there that will make great sacrifices for something that they love and believe in.

MMA fighters, for example, put themselves at tremendous risk because they're chasing their own personal ideas of "greatness." And there are many examples of "struggling artists" throughout history that gave up on relationships and money because they were chasing something that they believed in.

I'm not defending Kubrick's managerial style, and I don't know anything about the individual that they are talking about and what drove him. I just don't have any difficulty imagining that this person believed in something very personal that he was chasing. Something that the rest of us can't relate to but that meant a great deal to him. We don't have to imagine that Kubrick had him brainwashed or "enslaved" to accept that he could have made a personal choice that the rest of us are incapable of understanding, in pursuit of a value that he held above all others, because it was a deeply personal choice.

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

#82

Post by chefkd »

ZiiS wrote: post #28
textfiles wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm confused isn't sending lawyers basically the same thing as a veto? Or am I misunderstanding

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

#83

Post by chefkd »

ggm wrote: post #10
ashurov wrote: post #4

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

I would think it does, yes. It's personal rights, not concrete assets. Dead people have no right to privacy in law as I understand it. Not a lawyer, not in the economies involved in this. "it depends"

Does that mean dead people have no copyright rights as well? Curious what makes image likeness different than any other asset

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

#84

Post by raymond_goo »

blaerk wrote: post #45
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#

can someone post some cliffnotes please?

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

#85

Post by Hikikomori »

gspencley wrote: post #78
iknownthing wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2001 was "not bad"????

Jumping into this with a "spicy" personal opinion. How I would rate 2001 depends entirely on my criteria. For cinematography and vfx I would give it an 11 out of 10. Ground breaking. For story and entertainment, I'd give it a -1. It is an anti-film in that sense. The most mind-numbingly boring and drawn out piece of "film" that I have ever had the displeasure of trying to sit through. And I say that as a self-profess…

2001 is art but its also like watching paint dry.

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

#86

Post by sevagh »

gspencley wrote: post #81
Hikikomori wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think there's a lot of people that wanted to work for Kubrick. But I also have an easy time accepting that there are many people out there that will make great sacrifices for something that they love and believe in. MMA fighters, for example, put themselves at tremendous risk because they're chasing their own personal ideas of "greatness." And there are many examples of "struggling artists" throughout history…

>MMA fighters, for example, put themselves at tremendous risk because they're chasing their own personal ideas of "greatness." And there are many examples of "struggling artists" throughout history that gave up on relationships and money because they were chasing something that they believed in.

MMA fighters generally chase their own glory, to get their own hand raised in the ring. Not become a personal servant to another person's ego.

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

#87

Post by onemoresoop »

mateus1 wrote: post #43
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.

I agree with the befuddlement aspect that makes the mind rummage on it from time to time long after watching the movie. It's an incomplete resolution that causes us to think about the movie. It could be frustrating at times but I guess that's the whole point.

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

#88

Post by onemoresoop »

Towaway69 wrote: post #80
JKCalhoun wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's too bad. I understand that as a young filmmaker with an ego, but your supposed to lose that ego as you mature both emotionally and as an artist.

Directors to a certain extent need to dominate, it’s the nature of the job. If you’re the one organising 30 to 50 people on a set with a good many of them also being egos (think actors for example), you have to make hard decisions and to certain extent be that unpopular leader. On the other hand, there also plenty of soft spoken directors that use soft power to manage a set. Just want to point out that directing isn’…

Kubrick movies left a big impact on me, whatever he did it seems to have worked. But I also think he was a bully who it was very hard and damaging to work with.

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

#89

Post by onemoresoop »

psychoslave wrote: post #76
JKCalhoun wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's too bad. I understand that as a young filmmaker with an ego, but your supposed to lose that ego as you mature both emotionally and as an artist.

As surprising as it might be, narcissistic personality disorder won’t go away simply as people age, especially if they live in a social bubble where they are sent overall continuous positive feedback that society is very pleased at the global result of their behavior.

Do you suppose Kubrick may have suffered from narcissistic personality disorder?

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

#90

Post by onemoresoop »

lqet wrote: post #19

> "There are good things in Lolita. But in too many respects it squanders, impoverishes and conventionalises its source material, draining it of its complexity, nymphetry and eroticism." I think anyone who has read Nabokov's novel would agree that Lolita really isn't a great adaptation of the book. I think it is by far Kubrick's weakest film. There is a deep cynic darkness to the book that the movie misses completely…

There's another version of Lolita by Adrian Lyne starring Jeremy Irons. It's quite a bit different having that it was filmed in a different era.
Post reply on HN