111–120 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this any different than say working at Tesla today?
Shades of that Twitter executive who shared a picture of herself in a sleeping bag at the office, presumably doing "hardcore engineering". She later got fired regardless.
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…
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.
P.S. I've seen the movie countless times (never high), and sometimes I'll put it on as simply moving wallpaper.
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…
They do not in any way require that, at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Agreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence. You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were done simultaneously, right? There’s no failure of adaptation because it wasn’t one. It makes no sense to fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case. > He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do. Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent th…
Yes, I know that. I don't see how it makes it a nonsensical comparison though. One form was done well, the other incompetently. It's not like they marketed it as "hey, you really need both for the full experience".
>> He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
> Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later?
To convey something in the audio/visual format. It doesn't get more basic. Whether that's for pure entertainment, artistic intent, whatever.
> There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant.
Neither is there anything saying that you're safe from criticism if your work isn't coherent either. There was a very clear, coherent story to 2001, and Kubrick failed to convey it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> but I can’t see how it’s defendable Perhaps the key here is what YOU don't see, not the merit of the film. 2001 was ranked the 6th greatest movie of all time in the Sight and Sound poll, which is probably the world's most respected poll of industry professionals. And it was ranked #1 by their poll of directors: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greates... Could it possibly be that these directors…