# Getting into Stanley Kubrick / films in general **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** movies\ **Created:** [November 8, 2024, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951 "2024-11-08T22:08:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/41 "2024-11-10T03:31:53Z")
Aw shucks, catfish, that was so nice! And thanks to you Sci-fi nerds for the Star Child nitpick. Always the feature that makes these threads better than those other places where downvotes are allowed instead. But yeah, Stanley Kubrick went from black comedy to just black. Poor Anthony Burgess: Kubrick made him famous at the cost of cutting off the last chapter of Clockwork Orange. Alex simply outgrew his violent urges. Suffering and cruelty may remain the human constant, but for the individual human redemption is possible if not inevitable. Kubrick dumped that: Alex was born an irredeemable shit and he’ll remain a shit. Burgess knew there was something to be learned by listening to the Silence of God; Kubrick heard it as proof He was just a humbug. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/42 "2024-11-10T03:49:12Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Slim Pickens shows up dressed like a working cowboy. Since he clearly “gets” the character of Major Kong to dress up like he would, Slim Pickens gets the part. Except it wasn’t dressing up to get the role. Pickens was wearing his normal clothes. Although of course Kubrick had the final say, Slim immediately forged a bond with fellow Texan Terry Southern, cemented with the phrase “yeah dog!” And if there’s a more iconic image of the American spirit put onscreen than this, I need to be informed of it. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/P6WD7B_I_9c/hqdefault.jpg "Slim Pickens / Major Kong riding the bomb") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6WD7B_I_9c) ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/43 "2024-11-10T04:31:45Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Reportedly, it was Clarke who wrote in the aspect of nuclear conflict which would’ve created a very well-defined story that humanity’s history was conflict. The obelisk irradiated the early primates with the intelligence to develop tools, or something like that. The first thing they did was make weapons. In the transition cut where the primate’s bone-weapon cut to the orbiting space platform, Clarke wrote it as a nuclear weapons platform, seemingly a comment on how humanity was given the gift of intelligence, yet wasted it on violence from the very beginning. To be fair, there was violence before the monolith showed up. One of the hominids gets attacked by a leopard, and the whole group is chased away from the water hole. Then they used their new intelligence to make tools they needed to survive, so the choice was between violence and extinction. I don’t really blame them for making the choice they did. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/44 "2024-11-10T12:26:09Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > To be fair, there was violence before the monolith showed up. One of the hominids gets attacked by a leopard, and the whole group is chased away from the water hole. Then they used their new intelligence to make tools they needed to survive, so the choice was between violence and extinction. I don’t really blame them for making the choice they did. I wasn’t really making a value judgment there, but it’s pretty clear that Kubrick and/or Clarke were connecting some dots related to violence. I read their message as, weapons and war were initially an advantageous part of human nature, and we held onto it for way longer than we should’ve, and now it’s a serious problem. > [@minor7flat5](#): > > Any examples of this that you found particularly egregious? > > The only thing that stood out to me as superfluous was the “This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun” thing. In boot camp, every activity and movement has some purpose, and that particular scene seemed to lack purpose. Everything about them having rifles in the barracks, that dumb parade thing that you mentioned, having them sleep with their rifles and say a little rifle prayer, the idea that Pyle could somehow make it off the rifle range with 2 live rounds, and then go into the latrine and load it without the fireguard seeing what was going on? And then Ermey’s initial dressing-down scene, maybe this shows I’m from a somewhat different military era, but I can’t see a DI just cruising around a bunch of recruits just endlessly throwing out _personal insults_. I could see him ranting about their general unfitness, or in response to mistakes they made, but not like “hey you, you’re ugly, your new nickname is ugly guy, now go to sleep and think about being ugly.” They would do some crazy stuff but it was always in a training context with a training goal. The training schedule is very tight, and recruits aren’t cheap, so you can’t just abuse them for entertainment or degradation purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/45 "2024-11-10T13:30:37Z")
Since Kubrick left the meaning ambiguous in 2001: A Space Odyssey to encourage personal interpretation, I viewed the film not as an anti-violence message but as a portrayal of humanity’s evolution and transcendence into a higher level of consciousness. For me, the film showcases [perhaps guided] evolutionary leaps in humanity’s collective consciousness: the invention of tool-making, the achievement of space travel, and ultimately, through Bowman’s touching the monolith, a transition into an even higher state of consciousness _symbolized_ by his transformation into the Star Child. I didn’t interpret it as a _real_ giant fetus hovering over Earth as a means to de-escalate nuclear war; but, I assume that a transcendent, higher-level consciousness would inherently have no need for war. I also believe Keir Dullea’s casting and performance in the film were brilliant. His cold, detached persona perfectly matched the situation and the sterile ambiance of space, showing the isolation and enigmatic nature of the journey. Having someone like Harrison Ford giving a Star Wars performance would have broken the illusion. It’s a film that perplexed me when I first saw it as a child, but it stuck with me and gained meaning as I matured. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/46 "2024-11-10T13:45:50Z")
> [@Tibby](#): > > Since Kubrick left the meaning ambiguous in 2001: A Space Odyssey to encourage personal interpretation, I viewed the film not as an anti-violence message but as a portrayal of humanity’s evolution and transcendence into a higher level of consciousness. Oh yeah, definitely. Kubrick wouldn’t telegraph a trite and obvious message like “violence is bad”. I take it more like, humanity had a long evolutionary arc, violence was a key part of it, but now has become a threat to our continued evolution. In _2010_ they’re a lot more explicit about the fact that the aliens are in the business of nurturing evolution of species. So in that light it would seem that rescuing a species from self-extinction is probably a routine care-and-feeding chore, and the monolith is like an alarm that lets them know when intervention is needed. To us it looks like this amazing transcendental experience, but to them it’s probably just cleaning the poop out of the monkey cage. ---
**Author:** ![Ellecram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellecram/32/18948_2.png) [@Ellecram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellecram)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/47 "2024-11-10T13:50:56Z")
The cinematography in _Road to Perdition_ is stunning. The story and the accompanying musical score are also noteable. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/48 "2024-11-10T13:58:53Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > The Coen Brothers - Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men, True Grit, O Brother Where Art Thou? Blood Simple, Miller’s Crossing, Raising Arizona. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/49 "2024-11-10T14:05:34Z")
Kubrick’s photography roots shaped his iconic cinematography style, blending stunning visuals with deep storytelling. Barry Lyndon is a prime example of fine-art set scenes. His skill in composition and lighting set a new standard, inspiring generations of filmmakers. ---
**Author:** ![Ellecram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellecram/32/18948_2.png) [@Ellecram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellecram)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/50 "2024-11-10T14:08:19Z")
I did not know that! ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/51 "2024-11-10T16:05:38Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > - Alfred Hitchcock - Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho, Shadow of a Doubt, To Catch a Thief > - Billy Wilder - Some Like it Hot, The Apartment, Sunset Boulevard, Witness for the Prosecution > - Sidney Lumet - 12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, Network, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead > - David Lean - Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Dr. Zhivago > - The Coen Brothers - Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men, True Grit, O Brother Where Art Thou? > - Martin Scorsese - Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, The Wolf of Wall Street > - Francis Ford Coppola - The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now Wilder and the Coens jump out at me for being successful with both dramas and comedies. The rest of them are drama/suspense/satire. Are there any great comedy directors who should be mentioned in this thread; Woody Allen, maybe, Keaton, and Chaplin? ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/52 "2024-11-10T16:27:04Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Are there any great comedy directors who should be mentioned in this thread; Woody Allen, maybe, Keaton, and Chaplin? The “Big Three” of silent comedy—Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and my favorite, Harold Lloyd—weren’t just great performers; they were visionary filmmakers. Each brought something special: Chaplin’s heart, Keaton’s acrobatic stoicism, and Lloyd’s daring, relatable charm (his “glasses” character is a hoot). Their films broke new ground, blending humor and artistry in ways that still resonate—timeless! Best of all, their comedy remains as fresh and funny today as ever. ---
**Author:** ![EinsteinsHund](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/einsteinshund/32/8400_2.png) [@EinsteinsHund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EinsteinsHund)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/53 "2024-11-10T18:53:14Z")
> [@Tibby](#): > > Barry Lyndon is a prime example of fine-art set scenes. Wasn’t it filmed exclusively with natural lighting? Sunlight for outdoor shots and candles for indoors? ---
**Author:** ![SunUp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SunUp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SunUp)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/54 "2024-11-10T19:26:10Z")
AtW (According to Wikipedia), most of the indoor shots in the film were shot in natural candlelight, but some did add some eliectric light made to mimic the effect of candles (probably light sources in scene but off screen). Apparently he was able to do this because he had access to three of the largest aperture lenses ever made, which had been designed for NASA’s Apollo program. He probably got access to these lenses as a thank-you for the job he did creating and covering up the Apollo moon landing hoax. (Note: previous sentence not intended to be a factual statement.) ---
**Author:** ![EinsteinsHund](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/einsteinshund/32/8400_2.png) [@EinsteinsHund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EinsteinsHund)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/55 "2024-11-10T19:40:48Z")
> [@SunUp](#): > > He probably got access to these lenses as a thank-you for the job he did creating and covering up the Apollo moon landing hoax. (Note: previous sentence not intended to be a factual statement.) Nah, that part was true. See this documentary. 😉 > **[Dark Side of the Moon (2002 film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(2002_film))** > > Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary by director William Karel. It originally aired on the Franco-German television network Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. > The mockumentary's basic premise is that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. > The mockumentary begins with the premise that NASA loaned a unique and secret lens to Kubrick for the purpose of creating a faked Moon lan... ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/56 "2024-11-10T19:49:46Z")
> [@SunUp](#): > > He probably got access to these lenses as a thank-you for the job he did creating and covering up the Apollo moon landing hoax. (Note: previous sentence not intended to be a factual statement.) NASA hired Kubrick to fake the moon landing, but he was such a perfectionist that he did it on location. And, yes, that’s a joke. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/57 "2024-11-10T23:07:14Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I thought both Kubrick and Clarke denied this, especially Clarke, though Kubrick did consider and reject the idea. No? From the book - very last page: “A thousand miles below, he became aware that a slumbering cargo of death had awoken, and was stirring sluggishly in its orbit. … He put forth his will, and the circling megaton flowered in a silent detonation that brought a brief, false dawn to half the sleeping globe.” I doubt if Kubrick seriously considered filming that, because it would ruin his ending as well as calling back to the end of Dr. Strangelove, but it was in the book. I saw it in Cinerama not very long after it opened, and I understood it just fine, helped by a big Life magazine article on it, and of course from knowing _Childhood’s End_. But Kubrick was always cagey. Was it because he had hidden meanings? Or was it because those who were uncertain about the ending would go back and see it again? Smart guy, that Kubrick. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/58 "2024-11-10T23:12:07Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > NASA hired Kubrick to fake the moon landing, but he was such a perfectionist that he did it on location. > > And, yes, that’s a joke. Which is in every YouTube comments thread on moon landing deniers. But we know it isn’t true. If Kubrick was in charge, the landing would have been delayed until 1972 at least. He didn’t work fast. In the Boxes movie mentioned above we find that he was working on a Holocaust movie, but Spielberg conceived, researched, filmed and distributed _Schindler’s List_ in less time then Kubrick spent on research. ---
**Author:** ![minor7flat5](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/minor7flat5/32/258_2.png) [@minor7flat5](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minor7flat5)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2024, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/59 "2024-11-10T23:33:15Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > And then Ermey’s initial dressing-down scene, maybe this shows I’m from a somewhat different military era, but I can’t see a DI just cruising around a bunch of recruits just endlessly throwing out _personal insults_. Thanks for the explanation. That actually struck home when I first saw it–my initial days of boot camp involved much crap like that, and it seemed to me that one could adjust for Vietnam Era and get to the level he provided. I agree with you that there was also a bit of artistic license, like how the movie “Memphis Belle” uses one mission to show crazy actual events from a dozen missions. At least Ermey and his character had a focus on building Marines. In contrast, read The Short Timers, the book that Full Metal Jacket was based on (it can be found online in pdf). The drill sergeant in the original version, named Gerheim, was a sadist, being mean for the sake of being mean. ---
**Author:** ![cieskokid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cieskokid/32/5374_2.png) [@cieskokid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cieskokid)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2024, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951/61 "2024-11-11T01:11:10Z")
I’ll add “The Hudsucker Proxy” with Tim Robbins, Jennifer Jason Leigh AND Paul Newman. Smooth and silly — y’know, for kids! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-into-stanley-kubrick-films-in-general/1009951.md?page=4)