AI, Kubrick, Spielberg etc

**stevetseitz** · 09-19-2002, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by docraven

Spielberg says that A.I. was originally a Kubrick project.

He can try and seperate himself from it all he wants but it wasn't Kubrick who made that horrible film! The blame lies fully at the feet of the ego-maniacal Spielberg.

Spielberg is a genius and when challenged, as he was in "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" can produce fantastic films, but he needs to learn to quit meddling with the stories of others. He admits that he would have "shown the shark" in Jaws had it been functioning, but the limitation of NOT having everything forced him to be more creative! He turned "Jaws" from a potential B-movie into a classic. His extended ending of "Close Encounters" was awful. The studio was right to release the tighter version.

Spielberg had become this big icon of Hollywood and people don't have the stones to say "No! that's over the top." to him anymore.

Similarly, George Lucas has gone of the digital deep-end and become enamored with what he CAN do instead of what he should do.

**docraven** · 09-20-2002, 01:41 PM

As regards:

Originally posted by stevetseitz
… I just get so tired of the lavish praise for what I see as excellent but not truly classic films (2001, Dr. Strangelove).

I am placing a comment in the Kubrick forum.

**docraven** · 09-20-2002, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by stevetseitz

He can try and seperate himself from it all he wants but it wasn't Kubrick who made that horrible film! The blame lies fully at the feet of the ego-maniacal Spielberg.

Really interesting comments -- I’ve left a response to this in the new Kubrick forum.

D

jacobic216 · 10-16-2002, 01:57 AM

First of all, that film was definitely a Kubrick idea. He started it but realized his own maticulousness and passed it on to Spielberg. The boy would have aged during filming. Second of all, that film was brilliant. Spielberg took what he knew as a master film maker and presented us with a piece of artwork to pay homage to his predicessor as, in my opinion, the greatest filmmaker around. Spielberg and Kubrick arranged for Spielberg to direct it for years, since right after Schindler's List if I'm not mistaken. It's all in the AI DVD and in the documentary, "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures." Check these out for all the info you'll need to know on the back story. I know tons of people who don't like AI either. I just see it differently.

**stevetseitz** · 10-16-2002, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by jacobic216
First of all, that film was definitely a Kubrick idea. He started it but realized his own maticulousness and passed it on to Spielberg. The boy would have aged during filming. Second of all, that film was brilliant. Spielberg took what he knew as a master film maker and presented us with a piece of artwork to pay homage to his predicessor as, in my opinion, the greatest filmmaker around. Spielberg and Kubrick arranged for Spielberg to direct it for years, since right after Schindler's List if I'm not mistaken. It's all in the AI DVD and in the documentary, "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures." Check these out for all the info you'll need to know on the back story. I know tons of people who don't like AI either. I just see it differently.

The film was horrifically bad. A.I. was the perfect example of what happens to a director when no one around him has the guts to say,"Steven, that is too much." "Steven, your'e rambling." "Steven, that is over the top." Spielberg was so enamored with himself and his ability to use C.G.I. that he created a monster with no soul. It's like Spielberg has reached a level where no one dare question him. He works much better WITH limitations than without. (See: "Jaws") The film aside from neat design aspects lacked any redeeming qualities.

Here is an aside: After seeing the film, The audience in my theater sat quietly in stunned amazement, before the laughter broke out in the theater. Nearly everyone was shaking their heads while leaving the movie.

**tabuno** · 10-16-2002, 03:33 PM

I was wonderfully touched and moved by AI and as a fan of sci fi, I felt that AI hit the themes and characterization of essence of sci fi very well. The movie he created was "a monster with no soul" but that is exactly the point. The human race had become a monster without a soul and it took an artificial person to demonstrate that to the audience. Perhaps, the audience didn't like the message but that is what makes AI so great. Sometimes people don't like a movie because they don't like what it's trying to say. The blend of Kubrick and Spielberg was fascinating and the ending haunting.

**stevetseitz** · 10-16-2002, 05:23 PM

>>>The movie he created was "a monster with no soul" but that is exactly the point. The human race had become a monster without a soul and it took an artificial person to demonstrate that to the audience. Perhaps, the audience didn't like the message but that is what makes AI so great.<<<

I always have been wary of the tactic of using a criticism of a film as it's "secret weapon". It would be like me poorly filming and editing a movie with a camcorder. When critics said it is "raw and amateurish" I'd simply say, "Exactly!, that's the whole point!" If a message is worth saying it's worth saying it in a way that relates to the audience.

**tabuno** · 10-16-2002, 06:13 PM

AI appreared to be polished requiring a big budget. I loved how adult oriented the movie was. The problem with the movie was that it wasn't a children's movie that many people possibly expected. William Hurt wasn't a sympathetic character in the end which probably put people off, but it reflected a serious commentary on the "monster" of the humanity of man while it was the artificial child that ultimately represented humanity. Just because the audience couldn't "relate" to this adult movie because of the number of child attending expecting a family-oriented movie doesn't diminish the fact that its targeted sci fi audience could find many great ideas well-depicted and its hard-hitting commentary a tribute to Kubrick's social messages of past movies. Kubrick's movie are not expected to be box office sensations nor to attract great popular following. Spielberg did well by not turning Kubrick's original idea by watering down to the general public and turning it into a cute, entertaining movie experience.

jacobic216 · 10-17-2002, 04:07 AM

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.

**Johann** · 12-09-2014, 05:50 AM

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.

**Chris Knipp** · 12-09-2014, 09:11 AM

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.

**tabuno** · 12-09-2014, 03:13 PM

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.

**Chris Knipp** · 12-09-2014, 04:21 PM

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

**Johann** · 12-10-2014, 08:03 AM

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.

**Chris Knipp** · 12-15-2014, 06:30 PM

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.