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

121–130 of 143 posts

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

#121

Post by garyrob »

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.

Ooookay. You are the world's greatest expert in film-making. Thank you.

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

#122

Post by bhaney »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #63
bhaney wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that they didn't need his agreement in the first place, but they voluntarily entered into a contract with Kubrick that gave him the final say on publishing in exchange for him agreeing to be interviewed for the book.

If they didn't need his agreement, but entered into contract anyway that gave so much power. Why? Seems like we are still missing something here. The article didn't get into the legal side.

I said it in my previous comment and it's also in the article. The "why" is so Kubrick would agree to be interviewed for the book. They gave him publishing veto rights that he otherwise wouldn't have had in exchange for that, which is pretty common and typically well worth it.

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

#123

Post by aaplok »

themaninthedark wrote: post #75
aaplok wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I suppose that your interpretation would be dependent on if you are postmodernist or not and if you believe in the death of the author. I have never read the book or seen the file but the work is very interesting to me as when it get brought up people will start claiming all sorts of things from it. I think the most insane from my point of view was when I heard/saw(can't remember if online or in person) an argument t…

I recommend you to read the book, I think that the film doesn't (can't?) do it justice. The book being written from the point of view of the narrator is crucial: the reader is put in the mind of a pedophile (we are told that he is in jail). I also suggest imagining the girl as a child, before puberty at the start of the story.

The case study of Lolita is interesting because there are two competing readings. The fact that the character is often associated to seduction and jailbait in popular culture is arguably symptomatic of a culture of blaming the victims of this kind of crimes. Obviously not all men are perverts but I sometimes wonder if those of us who aren't don't underestimate the number of those who are.

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

#124

Post by ZiiS »

chefkd wrote: post #82
ZiiS wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I this case the author agreed that Kubrick would read the final book and agree if it should be published. This removes the option he chose with all other books of simply ignoring them. Very different then Streisand effecting an independent author.

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

#125

Post by kjs3 »

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.

He had a family. While clearly he thought it was worth it personally, he wasn't making choices just for himself.

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

#126

Post by ggm »

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

In some economies, Copyright falls to the heirs or assigned owner for a stated period after death. From the University of Melbourne:

Copyright generally lasts 70 years after the death of the creator or after the first year of publication, depending on the type of material and/or when it was first published: Artistic works, including photographs, Dramatic works.

https://copyright.unimelb.edu.au/shared/basic-principles-of-...

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

#127

Post by 486sx33 »

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…

Go and photograph commercial street - right away! After completing the task, he found it was just for Kubrick to show off to his colleague

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

#128

Post by southernplaces7 »

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…

The Shining movie is different enough from the book in key elements as to go in a completely different direction. Also, though it's an enormously famous, atmospheric horror movie, Stephen King disliked it, especially because it changed certain key elements.

The odd thing about it is how it conserved the atmosphere of the book superbly, while also deviating so drastically in a very selective way.

Now, specifically:

In the book, the hotel itself is much more of a living thing of its own, with its own sentience, not just a haunted building. In the movie, it's more just a sinister building with a terrible past, now filled with malevolent ghosts.

The Wendy of the book is a tough, scrappy fighter who shows enormous resourcefulness in protecting her son both from his increasingly deranged father and also the deeply evil hotel that wants to eat the boy's soul. In the movie, Kubrick, for fuck knows what reasons, turned her into a partly hysterical, mousy shrew that saves herself and her son more by luck than by tough effort. This was one of the two things Stephen King most hated about the movie version, he felt that one of his good, tough characters was destroyed by Kubrick for no good reason at all..

The other thing King most hated in the film was the characterization of Jack Torrance. He tried to convince Kubrick not to use Nicholson because he felt the guy had far too sinister a presence in general. The novel Jack on the other hand was a mostly normal, likable guy slowly made insane by the hotel. The movie version was more of an already unpleasant man with repressed insanity trying to preserve some goodness, and failing horribly with the help of the hotel's evil spirits.

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

#129

Post by scarecrowbob »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #128
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…

The Shining movie is different enough from the book in key elements as to go in a completely different direction. Also, though it's an enormously famous, atmospheric horror movie, Stephen King disliked it, especially because it changed certain key elements. The odd thing about it is how it conserved the atmosphere of the book superbly, while also deviating so drastically in a very selective way. Now, specifically: In…

I think King is a stranger to his own writing.

Having read a lot of his writing about writing, and having spent a lot of time (especially in my formative years) reading his writing, I think my understanding of his writing would sound totally foreign to him.

Like, I think he's got a lot of issues with father's and sex, to be blunt. I think Kubrick found a similar reading and built an excellent film around it. I think that King wrote an excellent novel about those themes precisely because he could do that with no self-consciousness, completely unburdened by that reading.

He focuses on craft, which is great and has made some terrific literature. At the same time, I think he too-easily dismisses reading text at any deeper level. That's great for writing but less helpful for digging up what makes the writing good. Similarly, it's helpful for living our day to day lives but less helpful for getting us out of dysfunctional patterns.

Post reply on HN