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

101–110 of 143 posts

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

#101

Post by munchler »

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 have to disagree with you about 2001. Both endings were epic, but Clarke's vision in the book was more rational and scientific, while Kubrick's is more impressionistic and mystical. As a result, the two effectively diverge at the end and the book doesn't really "explain" the movie. (Although I certainly do encourage everyone to read the book as well.)

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

#102

Post by munchler »

pinewurst wrote: post #100
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’m pretty sure Clarke’s 2001 book was post-screenplay and possibly post-movie.

No. It was developed concurrently with the film version and parts of it were even based on Clarke's earlier short stories (e.g. The Sentinel).

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

#103

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#104

Post by slibhb »

voltaireodactyl wrote: post #24
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.

Exactly right. But people today are extremely resistant to this fact.

It's very clear that many, many people would give up nearly anything -- including years of their lives -- to work with someone as talented as Kubrick. Is that crazy? I wouldn't do it, but others would.

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

#105

Post by WalterBright »

pinewurst wrote: post #100
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’m pretty sure Clarke’s 2001 book was post-screenplay and possibly post-movie.

The book was written concurrently with the movie. See the book "The Lost Worlds of 2001" for various versions of it.

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-2001-Arthur-Clarke/dp/0451...

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

#106

Post by Hikikomori »

gspencley wrote: post #97
sevagh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 an…

Agreed but you're missing the point, which is that the individual might have so believed in Kubrik's art that he wanted to make personal sacrifices in pursuit of that. For all we know (and others undoubtedly know more about the story than I do), this man might have actually been in love Kubrik and wanted nothing more than to be close to what he perceived as "greatness." I'm not even saying whether I think it's morall…

You're missing the point, abuse is bad even if the abused accepts it for whatever reason. You can achieve great things without abusing people, it's not a requirement.

Your MMA example is also missing the imbalanced power dynamic that you usually have in an abusive relationship.

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

#107

Post by FrustratedMonky »

Hard_Space wrote: post #72
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think the issue is, Kubrick was so sensitive, that even the most mild criticism was taken badly. So the author knows the score, and treads lightly, and is still jumped on. The author was hired to do a 'nice' book, and was pretty nice but the customer was a Prima donna and rejected it anyway. Think we've all encountered bad customers like this.

I don't know - I think the author was hoping for tremendous indulgence from Kubrick when attempting to get him to green-light quotes like: '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.' It's valid criticism, because it's a point of view, but I wouldn't expect anything quite that ha…

Since Kubrick had opportunity to respond, he was able to respond to the draft, he could have used it as opportunity to explain the censorship of the time that lead to that outcome. The article even mentions that later Kubrick tended to agree with that view of Lolita.

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

#108

Post by slibhb »

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…

Those movies don't require you to read the books. They leave something to the imagination, which some people don't like. But other people do like it!

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

#109

Post by iknownthing »

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…

> It lacked plot, character development, relatibility

Kubrick definitely did not play by those rules.

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

#110

Post by tacocataco »

smitty1e wrote: post #23
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.

We enjoy art from artists deep in addictions or mental health crisis.

Art can be morbid. Like an ongoing disaster that unfolds before us, we can't look away sometimes.

Post reply on HN