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

131–140 of 143 posts

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

#131

Post by pjerem »

slibhb wrote: post #104
voltaireodactyl wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not the issue. The issue is that some people (like, probably Kubrick) will abuse this.

There is nothing wrong in loyalty. What is wrong is unilateral loyalty.

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

#132

Post by ngcc_hk »

chefkd wrote: post #83
ggm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It seems it is not copyright but veto right. But he has passed away. Cannot veto any more?

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

#133

Post by amanzi »

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.

I listened to a podcast about it ages ago, and if my memory serves me correctly - the book was started first but wasn't finished until after the movie had been completed. Kubrick couldn't wait for Clarke to finish the book, so he carried on with the production of the movie. I think Clarke wanted to release the book first, but Kubrick wasn't going to wait for him!

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

#134

Post by runsfromfire »

ghusto wrote: post #120
garyrob wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Appealing to authority doesn't negate what I said. There was a clear narrative to the story, Kubrick failed to convey it. That is poor film making.

He wasn’t trying to convey the story you wanted him to convey so it’s poor filmmaking?

I’m not sure I understand your position. He’s a bad filmmaker because you preferred the book’s ending?

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

#135

Post by [deleted] »

pjerem wrote: post #131
slibhb wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not the issue. The issue is that some people (like, probably Kubrick) will abuse this. There is nothing wrong in loyalty. What is wrong is unilateral loyalty.

[deleted]

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

#136

Post by singleshot_ »

ghusto wrote: post #120
garyrob wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Appealing to authority doesn't negate what I said. There was a clear narrative to the story, Kubrick failed to convey it. That is poor film making.

I’ve seen the movie a few times and no part of it is confusing. The movie and the story it tells is coherent and, I dare say, pretty obvious. It’s unfortunate that you were not able to follow it, both because of your obvious dissatisfaction and because now you’re making a lot of bad posts.

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

#137

Post by mizunooto »

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…

You can see his name in a newspaper article in Eyes Wide Shut at 2:21:03 (timing from Apple "TV" app version)

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

#138

Post by bubble12345 »

munchler wrote: post #101
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.)

Reminds me of Solaris, the same thing holds there (Lem's "rational" book vs. Tarkovsky's "impressionistic" movie)

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

#139

Post by crossroadsguy »

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.

That is true. This is the belief on which this entire, perpetual, scam of "die working for this startup for peanuts" for the great purpose of "changing the world" has been running. Every time a founder finds such sheep, mostly fresh ones but some old ones too once in a while.

Sadly all that almost looks like "grateful to be abused".

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

#140

Post by voltaireodactyl »

pjerem wrote: post #131
slibhb wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not the issue. The issue is that some people (like, probably Kubrick) will abuse this. There is nothing wrong in loyalty. What is wrong is unilateral loyalty.

I hope this doesn’t come off as snide, but is there a positive trait that abusive people won’t abuse for their own benefit?

In my view, if there is one I’ve yet to encounter it.

Which would suggest it’s largely the responsibility of each individual to decide what is important to themselves, and how much of themselves they’re prepared to sacrifice in pursuit of said thing.

For some, perhaps works of art that hold meaning for millions of people over many, many years would qualify. For others, it’s a highly paid dev job. I suspect the difference between the two (and all others) “exists” more in the eye of the beholder than folks on any side of the equation would care to accept.

You see it as unilateral loyalty. Perhaps he saw it as something different, or at least lived his life with both eyes open to his own experience. The only thing we can both say for sure is that we will never know for certain.

Post reply on HN