Getting into Stanley Kubrick / films in general

[Gatopescado]

@Slithy_Tove

Slim immediately forged a bond with fellow Texan Terry Southern…

To this day. If I ever see a sign that says “Bear Creek”, you better believe I’m stealin it!

No. I will not share photos.

[Stratocaster]

Thanks. Of course you’re right. I recalled this bit from the Wiki entry…

Some of the critics’ cataclysmic interpretations were informed by Kubrick’s prior direction of the Cold War film Dr. Strangelove, immediately before 2001 , which resulted in dark speculation about the nuclear weapons orbiting the Earth in 2001. These interpretations were challenged by Clarke, who said: “Many readers have interpreted the last paragraph of the book to mean that he (the foetus) destroyed Earth, perhaps for the purpose of creating a new Heaven. This idea never occurred to me; it seems clear that he triggered the orbiting nuclear bombs harmlessly …”.

…which I remembered as Clarke disputing anything was detonated (as opposed to denying anything cataclysmic occurred).

I’m still of the opinion that the story I learned through post-viewing research was (1) fascinating, and (2) indiscernible from what was actually depicted on screen. The film and the explanation are certainly consistent; for me, though, the former did not lead me to the latter. I’m sure I would have benefited from all the contemporaneous buzz and analysis instead of finally viewing it in 2024, left to my own devices.

[Guest-starring_Id]

@Robot_Arm

Actors, directors, editors, and cinematographers are sometimes like football referees to me; if I notice them, then they must be doing something wrong. But not always.

I like the metaphor. Reminded me of:

High Anxiety- Window Scene

@markn_1

No one else can fill a simple tracking shot down an interior corridor with such a sense of hidden menace.

With that in reference to David Lynch, I’d say the main subject of this thread - Stanley - set that bar, with Danny zooming around the Overlook Hotel’s hallways in his trike, with that absolutely perfect soundtrack of just wheels on hardwood floors, alternating with wheels on carpets, at even intervals, turning this corner and that, then coming to a stop. Whether it was slogging through the trenches in FMJ and Paths…, ambling through 2001’s corridors, or walking through the Overlook maze, Kubrick made some really fine tracking shots. Not in Player or Touch of Evil territory, but still legendary. (off the top of my head, for Lynch, pretty heavy how he tracks right in on Dennis Hopper yelling “Let’s f***!!!. I’ll f*** anything that moves!” in “Blue Velvet”.

@Stratocaster

IOW, the end was self-consciously artsy. [re: 2001]. I don’t mind ambiguity. I can actually enjoy it. What I’m frustrated by is “what the fuck was that supposed to be?” No one has yet explained to me how I could have understood what was unfolding based on what was on the screen…His films are undeniably interesting spectacles, and I’ve enjoyed many of them. But he sometimes ignores basic storytelling (and character development) in the service of his artistic vision a bit too much for my taste.

And in particular there’s too much of a perfect sterility to his filmmaking. I thought "Eyes Wide Shut was haltingly stiff, along with Barry Lyndon, as well as many other scenes in his films, like the early interview in “The Shining”, almost as if there might be just a little bit too much time for them to actually deliver their gull-darned lines.

The way he storyboarded Clockwork showed a really self-conscious, distracting (to me, anyway) obsession with symmetry that hit me over the head way more than any of the ole ultraviolence did. I could bore with innumerable examples.

@Johanna

Tales from Topographic Oceans:

just joshin!

Cool that youtube has some of his early docs like “Flying Padre” and “Day of the Fight”.

My favourite story about Stanley Kubrick, that I’m sure some are familiar with, is from a link I’m having trouble loading, but at least can copy this -

On the first day of principal photography [of The Killers], [Lucien] Ballard, by then very established and sought after, decided to lay a set of tracks and choose a lens contrary to what had been asked for. When Stanley discovered this, he repeated his first order. Ballard objected, ‘It’ll be fine like this. Nobody will notice.’ Stanley looked him in the eye and said quietly, ‘You will either do as I direct or you can leave right now.’ Ballard nodded, rebuilt the tracks and they never had another bad moment.

Pretty cool with the less experienced fillmaker already getting all alpha.

Regardless how much embellishment / creative licence there may have been in the boot camp half of FMJ, I thought it was really super-duper popcorn-worthy - I couldn’t imagine a sedate theatre audience for that. I found it way more entertaining than the second half, which basically seemed like another war film to me, especially in comparison to Apocalypse Now’s battle scenes, which I found way more dazzling and zippy. Only thing that stood out to me in the FMJ second half were shots of the sniper’s POV, aiming her rifle through rubbly holes in the walls.

One filmmaker I need to mention is Hal Ashby - it’s possible I’ve mentioned him before here. Like the vast majority of filmmakers, there have been some mediocre entries in his CV, but some of his standouts - “The Last Detail” and “Being There” - are sublime gems that just shine majestically in the constellations for eternal serendipity and wonder.
“Coming Home”? naaaaaaaa…

[Beckdawrek]

Hey. I thought…

NM.

[Q.Q.Switcheroo]

@Guest-starring_Id

Whether it was slogging through the trenches in FMJ and Paths…, ambling through 2001’s corridors, or walking through the Overlook maze, Kubrick made some really fine tracking shots.

Whereas the Coens have a flair for sending the camera through pipes and ducts.

[Guest-starring_Id]

Oh, indeed! Or Antonioni doing that extended through-the-window shot in “The Passenger”.

[Voyager]

@Stratocaster

…which I remembered as Clarke disputing anything was detonated (as opposed to denying anything cataclysmic occurred).

Clarke later contradicted himself. On page 152 of 2010, after Bowman detonates the bombs “But there would be some unlucky men and animals who would never see again.”
So not cataclysmic, but not harmless.
As for understanding it, it really helped to have read all of Clarke before I saw it.

[Stratocaster]

Yes, I certainly viewed it unprepared. And while I accept that some sequels do require one to have seen the prior(s), I insist that standalone movies, well, stand alone and speak for themselves, requiring only general, common knowledge to make sense of them.