criterionforum.org

chaddoli wrote:Every conversation involving HAL is hysterical. The Shining? Are you kidding? That film is unbelievably funny - probably his darkest comedy.

And Eyes Wide Shut, his best film, is also his funniest.

I agree that Kubrick's films have their humor. Some HAL moments are funny, and The Shining can be hilarious (Torrance going stir-crazy, his interactions with the barkeep, the scenes Person outlined, etc.). But EWS? I chuckle at the Alan Cumming scene now and then, but nothing else really. How is it his funniest?

dave41n wrote: But EWS? I chuckle at the Alan Cumming scene now and then, but nothing else really. How is it his funniest?

Exactly. There may be moments of dark humor and irony in Kubrick's films, but that alone does not mean that they approach a comedic narrative. If people want to find revisionist meanings in The Shining or Eyes Wide Shut, they are free to do so. But calling them comedies seems pretty ludicrous to me.

The only funny scene I remember is the gay guy at the reception.

A almost three hour long film starring a deeply sexually frustrated Tom Cruise is funny, but that's in large part due to his public persona. Strictly on its own terms the film doesn't have much humor except for the scenes with Alan Cumming and Leelee Sobieski. Also, some of the masks are hilarious.

I don't recognise genres. I get the feeling that most filmmakers don't either, ie. "the film I am about to direct is a comedy/thriller". Genre labelling is just a short-hand to appease the nose-pokery of people lacking in imagination - studio execs, journalists, critics.

Some films are explicitly called "comedies", yet I don't find then funny AT ALL and sometimes I can't even conceive of anyone finding funny. But then there are scenes in films that are not intended to be funny to anyone, but old weirdo here laughs out loud at sorts of incongruous stuff in films.

chaddoli wrote:And Eyes Wide Shut, his best film, is also his funniest.

I came on to make a comment on how Eyes Wide Shut was my second favorite Kubrick film after 2001, but it looks like someone else loves it as well. I find the film extremely dark and beautiful.

My favorite shot in this film is when Cruise enters the main room of the cult and every face is looking at him. This is by far, one of the best framed shots in Kubrick's filmography.

Where does Kubrick (or his DP) break the 180 Degree Rule?

As with all "journalism" this "information" is subject to doubt until actually proven, but if the words "EXCLUSIVE footage of Stanley Kubrick's award winning films will be shown to the public for the first time at this year's Childwickbury Arts Fair. ...outtakes and cut scenes from the late director's masterpieces." are accurate, then what are we to believe of the endlessly-repeated "fact" that Kubrick destroyed all outtakes and unused footage for his films?

I mean, WTF?

It may be parts that were edited out of the films just before general release... which would mean that a lot of copies existed of them. I'm thinking of the 'technology' prologue for 2001 and the original ending for The Shining (both were screened with the scenes intact)

aox wrote:Where does Kubrick (or his DP) break the 180 Degree Rule?

The bathroom scene with Grady in The Shining? That's the one that immediately comes to mind, I'm sure there's more.....

A fascinating article about digging through Kubrick's personal archives.

That's an article from 2004, from around the time Taschen published The Stanley Kubrick Archives. Alison Castle, the editor of that brilliant book, is said to be working now on a book about Kubrick's Napoleon project.

Cool promo made for Channel 4's upcoming Kubrick retrospective. Just wish it was being shown at 1.37:1... *ducks flying debris*

Oedipax wrote:Just wish it was being shown at 1.37:1... *ducks flying debris*

I totally agree about the 1.37 ratio. I kept all of my original full-screen DVD's, whilst purchasing the restored boxed set, just because I prefer them in that ratio. the atmosphere is so eerie, especially in The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut.

An interview with Christiane and a peek at Stanley's letters.

Antoine Doinel wrote:A fascinating article about digging through Kubrick's personal archives.

For UK viewers, Jon Ronson's programme about Kubrick's boxes is on More4 tonight at 2200 and repeated Thursday lunchtime, same channel. I don't really go for Kubrick but in this he is a man after my own heart. He also had a library full of nothing but books on Napoleon...

Antoine Doinel wrote:a peek at Stanley's letters.

His description of a day during production of 2001 makes me feel jealous:

Stanley Kubrick wrote:I get up at 7.00am hit the studio by about 8.15 and begin a day that generally ends about 8.30pm. I go home, say goodnight to the children, have dinner, work on the novel (a spin-off of 2001: A Space Odyssey) and go to bed around midnight. I do this seven days a week.

He works a twelve hour day and then goes home to work on a novel? I guess I'm not surprised, but it's still an astonishing amount of energy.

Mr_sausage wrote:He works a twelve hour day and then goes home to work on a novel? I guess I'm not surprised, but it's still an astonishing amount of energy.

Then again, he didn't too many films afterwards so it probably knackered him for life...

A look at some of the props.

The machete shown above belonged to Adam Baldwin's character, Animal Mother, who in the original script used it to hack off a dead female sniper's head. The decapitation wasn't shown in the film, but the head was.

It's been nearly ten years since I've seen Full Metal Jacket, but I don't recall seeing the head.

Mr_sausage wrote:He works a twelve hour day and then goes home to work on a novel? I guess I'm not surprised, but it's still an astonishing amount of energy.

Conversely, I've read (I'm sorry -- I forget where -- one of his bios?) that on Full Metal Jacket he was routinely hours late every morning... Of course, take anything you read about Kubrick with a grain of salt.

dadaistnun wrote:

The machete shown above belonged to Adam Baldwin's character, Animal Mother, who in the original script used it to hack off a dead female sniper's head. The decapitation wasn't shown in the film, but the head was.

It's been nearly ten years since I've seen Full Metal Jacket, but I don't recall seeing the head.

She was NOT decapitated in the film.

In the spirit of having just watched the wonderful short documentary Stanley Kubrick's Boxes, it inspired me to offer up few more titles to add to the book list at the beginning of this thread.

Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film and the Uses of History - edited by Geoffrey Cocks, James Diedrick, Glenn Perusek
(University of Wisconsin Press, 2006)

The Wolf at the Door: Stanley Kubrick, History & the Holocaust - Geoffrey Cocks (Peter Lang Publishing, 2004)

Stanley Kubrick Kinematograph Nr. 20 (Deutsches Filmmuseum Frankfurt am Main, 2004) www.stanleykubrick.de

Stanley Kubrick: A Film Odyssey - Gene D. Phillips (Popular Library, Big Apple Film Series, 1975)

Filmguide to 2001: A Space Odyssey - Carolyn Geduld (Indiana University Press, 1973)

The Making of Kubrick's 2001 - edited by Jerome Agel (Signet, 1970)

In an essay by Anthony Frewin in the Taschen Archives book, he writes - (quoting Kubrick)

Anthony Frewin wrote:For critical studies of his own films he [Stanley Kubrick] valued those by Gene D. Phillips and Michel Ciment and thought that Carolyn Geduld's little book on 2001 "probably one of the most perceptive things written about it." He admired Vincent LoBrutto's biography for the industry that went into it and said "this tells me things about me and my family I never knew."

Oh god, what I would give to see all those hours of behind the scenes footage of Full Metal Jacket!

EDIT: forgot a few more books pertaining to 2001 --

Are We Alone? The Stanley Kubrick Extraterrestrial-Intelligence interviews - edited by Anthony Frewin (Elliot & Thompson, 2005)

Hal's Legacy: 2001's Computer as Dream and Reality - edited by David G. Stork (The MIT Press, 1997)

Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey -- New Essays- edited by Robert Kolker (Oxford University Press, 2006)

Why has the family apparently abandoned all of the footage? From what was seen in A Life in Pictures, there was plenty of it.

I mean, they have a different perspective on Kubrick than the rest of us, but can't they at least be merciful and make something of it, at least going so far as to complete Making Full Metal Jacket?

In case anyone is interested, Taschen is reprinting their big Kubrick coffee table book in a smaller format but with the same page count (no DVD this time)

Awesome, that's definitely a bit more in my price range. What was on the DVD?