AI, Kubrick, Spielberg etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacobic216

I did not find it to be amateurish. Rather, I thought AI represented Spielberg attempting to direct in the style Kubrick shot it. I think he pulled it off marvelously. Kubrick's films are more often than not slammed by the critics. Kubrick's films are always very dark with an ending of immence contraversy. Spielberg kept Kubrick's legacy of art rather than money alive. It shows that even for a man like Spielberg, it's not entirely dollars and cents.

---

Bravo. This was a labour of love. It is cinema history just being a tribute/homage/thank you to his friend Master Stanley Kubrick.
I said the film was a masterpiece when I left the theatre then, and I still feel it is, but it's one of those "flawed" masterpieces. It has three acts, all different in light and tone, and the third act in the future is astonishing cinema, some of the most wondrous images I've seen, something REQUIRED if you're saying this is a co-Kubrick production...

The second disc of the DVD has excellent context and "making-ofs". Spielberg was under a lot of pressure to make this, he did it, A.I. exists, and I am so glad it does. Spielberg's heart is huge.

A.I.?

Due to the age of this thread and its vague title I couldn't tell what film you were referring to. I loved A.I., but have not watched it for a while. Sometimes endings are satisfying, sometimes not. It doesn't always matter, in my view. A.I. is about profound sorrow, alienation.

I was surprised to see the former contributor's reference to Barry Lyndon and The Shining as Kubrick failures. I admire both; Barry Lyndon's reputation seems to have improved lately. On the other hand The Hudsucker Proxy and The Man Who Wasn't There are not the Coen brothers' only flops. Romance and Cigarettes and The Ladykillers could also be mentioned.

A.I. was a hard but compelling movie to watch. It was both joyous and sad and thrilling and sad and happy. The movie, in other words, reflects authentic life in a different perspective, what any classic film accomplishes.

Well put, and it's nice to see you return to the thread 12 years later as if nothing had happened!

As Chris and I apparently disagree about Interstellar, I find it eerie that his comment about my post has echoes of the time flux in the movie Interstellar. Ooooo. Past, present, and future all exist at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Knipp

A.I.?A.I. is about profound sorrow, alienation.

I was surprised to see the former contributor's reference to Barry Lyndon and The Shining as Kubrick failures. I admire both; Barry Lyndon's reputation seems to have improved lately. On the other hand The Hudsucker Proxy and The Man Who Wasn't There are not the Coen brothers' only flops. Romance and Cigarettes and The Ladykillers could also be mentioned.

---

A.I. is about alienation and profound sorrow. You're right Chris. I read somewhere that it was a mistake of Spielberg's to show the audience the Flesh Fair before we see Rouge City, because the impact the flesh fair has on our psyches is forgotten by the time we get to Rouge City. I don't really notice. The film is fascinating, and maybe the ending could've been better, but overall I like the movie a lot.
As for the Coens, Burn After Reading can be added to the list of failures, They are huge fans of Kubrick, and they have a lot of talent. Little known Kubrick fact: George Lucas had Chewbacca's head designed by the same guy who did the man-ape heads on 2001.

I can see in theory how the ordering of big set pieces could cause one to undercut the other. I think the riveting presence of young actor Haley Joel Osment also contributes strongly to the emotion and sadness of the film. He had a small part in FOREST GUMP, then a lot of TV roles before he hit it huge as the boy in SIXTH SENSE when he was 11. He was magical back then. He has worked continually and is in a new film by Kevin Smith, but his childhood brilliance hasn't quite translated into thespian significance at 26. You're right about BURN AFTER READING. I tried to like it, but it's really crap. The trouble with the indeed very talented Coens is they're too prolific. They crank them out, lacking the intense concentration, the determination to make a masterpiece, that led to Kubrick's greatness.

Agreed. Haley Osment was a very promising talent. What happened to him? He should be a big star right now, but he's kind of dropped off the radar, like another child star named Culkin.

I agree the Coens are too prolific. And so is Spielberg and Woody Allen, for that matter. For every great film, there are two or three duds! When Spielberg was announced as the director of Kubrick's A.I. I was against the idea, simply because Spielberg works too fast. He "cranks them out" like the Coens do, like a factory. I wondered how he could achieve a "kubrickian" feel by working so damn fast. But when I saw the finished product, I saw enough Kubrick in it to approve. It's a marriage of both directors' sensibilities, and I know it's a (flawed) Masterpiece, a special work in cinema history.

Martin Scorsese said after seeing Lolita and Dr. Strangelove, he knew "we had to wait for a new Kubrick film". The only directors that I "wait" to see their newest films are: Herzog, Trier, Polanski, PT Anderson and Peter Greenaway. The rest? I can catch up whenever I like. There are only 5 auteurs that truly excite me, where I feel missing one of their films is a crime. Jim Jarmusch & David Lynch get honorable mention....

It's not easy surviving being a child star for a variety of reasons. At least Osment seems to be keeping working. It seems he has been in movies regularly; they just don't draw attention to him. Macauley Culkin has worked in TV, but he burned out. Kieran Culkin works more and I've seen him in a couple of plays in New York, this year in a revival of THIS IS OUR YOUTH. There are or were seven brothers and sisters. I didn't know Spielberg was too prolific but now that you mention it I see he is. As for the Coens, I wonder if they are depressive types like Woody and just have to keep working to stay sane.

I've been watching a lot of Kubrick films, as I get ready for the Kubrick exhibition. I'll be posting a detailed report about it soon. I think that is Kubrick's greatest achievement: taking the TIME to make each film the best it can be. Nicole Kidman said it after working with him: "You want to know what's gold in filmmaking? TIME IS GOLD"' How many studios allow a director to take the time to get it right? Who has that luxury? I've ruminiated on it a lot: If I were to make a movie, what pressure am I under to deliver? HUGE FUCKING PRESSURE. Sydney Pollack said that Kubrick's films reflect that his reputation rested on Every SHOT! He wasn't allowed to "just make a movie". It had to be extraordinary. You could take a long time to make your first film, but if it meets critical and box-office success, you are on the bubble from them on. It makes me totally balk from entering the movie business. I could make a good film, something out of left field that makes a splash, but what's the incentive? I'm better off being an obscure internet talking head!

I'd like to see Spielberg direct Kubrick's Napoleon script or an adaptation of Wartime Lies- that would be a mea culpa for stop-dropping Kubrick's holocaust film, and would ratchet up his stature as a serious filmmaker, which he doesn't seem concerned about. He seems content with his mogul status.